Talk:Practical numbers: Difference between revisions
m
→Rosettacode's purpose
| (9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 70:
: Divergent approaches are a form of '''wealth''' for Rosetta Code, not a source of threat.
:[[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 21:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
==Two of many examples of using Haskell in Python.==
Hout states that he is not using Haskell in Python below; until I show on this page what I had linked it is made too obvious for even Hout to sustain the lie.
Looking at function names used in this task and just one of the other tasks Hout has examples for Hout uses the names of many functions defined in the Haskell language in his Python, (and Applescript), examples, hiding that they are Haskell translations rather than trying to be idiomatic language entries - the kind of code the language community would have you write.
This table shows exact function names found in his examples that come with Haskell but not Python, which has it's own functional tools and library.
::{| style="text-align: left;" border="4" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4"
|+ '''Functions defined in languages'''
|-
! Name || In Haskell || In Python
|-
| take || Yes || No.
|-
| unfoldr || Yes || No.
|-
| chunksOf || Yes || No.
|-
| primeFactors || Yes || No.
|-
| until || Yes || No.
|-
|}
Hout wants to '''pass-off''' idiomatic(?) Haskell as Python. He has denied this, and is now reduced to stating that it passes the linter; and personal jibes.
There is some progress however, Hout has taken on board that Python doesn't use Haskells <code>fst</code> function to get the first item in a Python list, for example.
I object to Houts lies and midirections in his attempts to pass off Haskell translations as idiomatic Python.
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 09:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
: Paddy I think we've already established that you disagree with my approach.
: (Those functions and function-names incidentally, are '''not''' peculiar to Haskell – they are part of a broader tradition of pure functional – i.e. mathematically based – programming. You will also find them, for example in SML, another of the languages to which the Python '''itertools''' module acknowledges a debt in the opening paragraph of its documentation. Borrowing functions and function names from that tradition is a well-established Python practice)
: All of that, however, is beside the point. We already know that you take a different approach. The question is, how to we '''handle''' differences of approach on Rosetta Code ?
: What is the solution ? (See the topic at the end of this thread for a summary of the solutions that various contributors have put to you, in the hope of some response).
: I notice that some rather dark themes are re-emerging in your discussion here. Are we now returning to the more exotic theories, perceptions and techniques which I thought you had put behind you in 2019 ?
:: See [Talk:Tree traversal - Rosetta Code]( http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Talk:Tree_traversal )
: [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 13:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
== Haskell type hints are not valid Python==
Line 285 ⟶ 328:
== Create a new language code (my awkward attempt at a bit of diplomacy) ==
Can I just ask, would you (Hout) be opposed to creating a new language code? Call it anything you like: [[Python (Functional)]], [[Functional Python]], [[Python-H]], [[Phython]], and explain on that new Category page it is just standard Python [3] written with Haskell/MH type annotation comments (or however you want to phrase it), and perhaps add a link on the existing [[Python]] Category page to it. In fairness I have to ask whether you (Paddy/Donald) would object to such a link/category. It seems to me that could resolve this clash of styles and be independently useful anyway. (My apologies if that's all just crazy talk.)
Just so you both know, I have actually learnt a few things from these arguments, not that I'm suggesting they should continue. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 13:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Line 377 ⟶ 420:
We have a problem.
The Rosetta Code
Disapproval of
:# hostile retitling of entries as "unidiomatic", even when they are more thoroughly linted than those labelled "idiomatic"
:# hostile "improvement" notices applied to code that is working and linted
:# deletion of all type comments, and their replacement with compiler type notation which requires debugging and is less easily readable
:# multiply repeated deletions of attempts to show two approaches side by side.
:# rhetoric dismissing a particular approach as "not to be be encouraged" and not to be used with a particular language.
Line 394 ⟶ 437:
Particular suggestions have been:
:# Comments written in English rather than in the Hindley-Milner notation which you experience as "Haskell".
Paddy or Donald, you have not yet had a chance to respond to these proposals.
Line 403 ⟶ 447:
Would you feel able to share with us why you were able to refrain from this kind of behaviour for a number of months, and have recently returned to it ?
It there anything we can do to help you "live and let live" again ?
[[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 07:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
== Rosettacode's purpose ==
Please keep in mind that the purpose of Rosettacode is to illustrate how a coding task can be implemented in multiple languages.
Please do not just delete code which was written with that purpose in mind.
If bulk becomes a problem, the code can be moved to a secondary page and linked from to the primary page. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 15:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
| |||