Talk:Rosetta Code/Rank languages by popularity: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→wanted: a complete list: Member count is biased |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
: For one thing, ranking usually means it starts with #1 (the highest ranking), not #783. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 09:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC) |
: For one thing, ranking usually means it starts with #1 (the highest ranking), not #783. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 09:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
::This seems somewhat pedantic as the order is correct (#1 Tcl is listed first), sorted by most members (783) sorted in a decreasing order. |
|||
: Some of the ealier programming examples used the ''category'' file as the "true file", and then filtered out the categories that weren't a language (usually by keyword and/or phrase filters). This worked fine for the top ten (or twenty, or fifty "languages" ...), but it became problematic when more programing languages where shown in the ranking. My program (the REXX example) also read the ''languages'' file and used that for a true filter to verify that a category was indeed a programming language. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 09:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC) |
: Some of the ealier programming examples used the ''category'' file as the "true file", and then filtered out the categories that weren't a language (usually by keyword and/or phrase filters). This worked fine for the top ten (or twenty, or fifty "languages" ...), but it became problematic when more programing languages where shown in the ranking. My program (the REXX example) also read the ''languages'' file and used that for a true filter to verify that a category was indeed a programming language. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 09:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::The task description gave a url to use as the source data. It also states that "filtering wrong results is optional" (however wrong is defined). I looked through the source data and didn't see any indication as what was a programming language or not. The task description also doesn't list criteria or list heuristics. If any solution is to used as canonical solution, is should be marked as such in the task description. |
|||
:: As explained by Gerard, I've marked the [[zkl]] solution as incorrect because it includes non-language categories. In addition I've just marked several more solutions (including [[UnixPipes]]) as incorrect too. (I haven't noticed before that more solutions don't filter the categories list). --[[User:AndiPersti|Andreas Perstinger]] ([[User talk:AndiPersti|talk]]) 13:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC) |
:: As explained by Gerard, I've marked the [[zkl]] solution as incorrect because it includes non-language categories. In addition I've just marked several more solutions (including [[UnixPipes]]) as incorrect too. (I haven't noticed before that more solutions don't filter the categories list). --[[User:AndiPersti|Andreas Perstinger]] ([[User talk:AndiPersti|talk]]) 13:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::As I noted above, doesn't that fall into the "optional" part of the task? |
|||
: Other pitfalls are that some programming languages are in different (letter) cases (Maple, MAPLE; Gdl, GDL; NewLISP, NewLisp; etc.); several languages use unicode character(s), others use different names, and still others aren't "registered" in Rosetta Code properly (such that they aren't recognized as a programming language). Another big stumbling block is that most examples don't properly handle the ranking of tied languages. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 09:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC) |
: Other pitfalls are that some programming languages are in different (letter) cases (Maple, MAPLE; Gdl, GDL; NewLISP, NewLisp; etc.); several languages use unicode character(s), others use different names, and still others aren't "registered" in Rosetta Code properly (such that they aren't recognized as a programming language). Another big stumbling block is that most examples don't properly handle the ranking of tied languages. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 09:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
::It really does seem like this task needs additional verbiage such that it can be solved/implemented against the description rather than other implementation and "hidden" knowledge. |
|||
==task clarification== |
==task clarification== |
||