Talk:Rosetta Code/Run examples: Difference between revisions

:::: The biggest difficulty with coming up with a general purpose, all (most) language task runner is the inconsistent markup and layout used by different entry authors. When I first wrote the Perl 6 task runner, I spent over a week going through and regularizing / standardizing markup on the various Perl 6 task entry authors and ensuring that the vast majority are complete runnable programs. It's pretty good now, but that was a real barrier to entry when I first wrote the code. The next several, not easily prioritizable difficulties for other languages: many task entries are not complete, stand-alone runnable code, they leave out standard libraries, or more commonly, call for including other task entry code... but don't actually include it; many task authors chose to spilt up entries into separate "task function" and "task demo" code blocks with no easy algorithmic way to tell which is which; some languages are just complicated to install / compile. None of it is insurmountable, but it requires more time and energy than I am willing to put into it. The extra credit (report on task entries that fail) is actually pretty easy, though determining '''why''' they fail may be hard. The Perl 6 entry already does report failures, though it just reports on the command line, not a compiled list. Just a matter of teeing it into a file though if I wanted to add that. The more credit (compare output to a standard) is somewhat infeasible for a Rosettacode task unless it was severely constrained to a select group of languages and tasks; and even then would be a large undertaking. Just smoking the Perl 6 entries takes several hundred / thousand lines of code, a few hours of runtime and extensive (one time) manual modification to the tasks to properly capture and compare the outputs. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 19:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)