Talk:Practical numbers: Difference between revisions
m
→Rosettacode's purpose
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 102:
--[[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 317 ⟶ 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 428 ⟶ 439:
:# A new language code, perhaps some variant of Functional Python, Curried Python etc
:# The labelling scheme used by Wren, leading to path names like Task::Python::Functional::Folding
:# 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 438 ⟶ 450:
[[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)
| |||