Talk:Practical numbers: Difference between revisions
→==Acceptable Solutions ?==
Line 371:
The Pythonic thing is to optimise for '''clarity''', the Rosetta thing is to show differing approaches '''side by side'''. Angry unilateral deletion, and the enforced reduction of clarity in the name of "compliance" is not just sad and foolish – it constitutes direct and disgraceful attack on the health and wealth of Rosetta Code, and on the principles of PEP8 itself.
[[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 20:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
==Acceptable Solutions ?==
We have a problem.
The Rosetta Code goal (defined on the landing page) of "Allowing a person with a grounding in one approach to learn another" is blocked here.
Disapproval of rival approaches has again, after a respite of several months, degenerated into:
:# 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
:# 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.
There is no need for us to change each others minds, but on Rosetta Code all contributors '''should''' be able to safely show a variety of working and well-linted approaches, without fear of "discouragement" and attack.
What is the way forward ?
Fellow contributors have suggested, as Wherrera puts it, creating and distinctly indexing the subcategory of Python solutions that code in a particular way. (My own description of the way that is again being attacked would be something like the ''composition of pure curried functions'', i.e. one approach to ''functional composition'' in general).
Particular suggestions have been:
#: 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
Paddy or Donald, you have not yet had a chance to respond to these proposals.
Can we ask you what it would take for you to feel that you didn't have to "discourage" approaches and views which differ from your own ?
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 ?
[[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 07:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
| |||