Talk:Sierpinski triangle/REXX output 64
What do we gain by this?
I would rather this page not exist at all. Limit the output in this case to the first 25 lines. (Maybe ask that the program constants be adjusted to something that fits with the RC norm if possible). --Paddy3118 04:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- +1. There's no need for this page. There are already three output examples for the REXX entry on the main page (and the triangle of order 32 is already unnecessary IMHO). --Andreas Perstinger (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- The existence isn't causing anyone any pain, you only get here if you want to view the larger Sierpinski triangle output (via clicking on the link on the main task page). I built the example for a separate page so only if someone is interested in what a larger Sierpinski triangle looks like, they can view it here. Another entry has seven examples (on the main page), but nobody is complaining about that.
- My intention is to also reduce the number of output examples for the other entries. --Andreas Perstinger (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- One reason why I included three examples on the main page it to show how to use reduced size fonts (if anyone want to use them to reduce their output viewing size).
- Well, this has nothing to do with the task or the output of your program. Reducing the font size is a HTML/CSS thing. (And this doesn't always work. I for example have setup my browser to always use a minimum font size. So what looks good on your monitor doesn't mean it also looks good at any other monitor in the world.) --Andreas Perstinger (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- I never read anything about an "RC norm". I also don't understand what program constraints that are being referred to, and why do they need adjusting. If there isn't a mention of program constraints (or limits) in the task, why restrict/enforce something that's not mentioned? I'm not sure why there is a need to delete something that isn't even on the (main) task page --- and not a bother to anyone viewing and/or scrolling entries and/or their output on the main task page.   One has to click on a link to be able to view this page in any case. I don't like to see things being deleted that are created in good faith; it was created because I thought there was a need for it to be viewable
- I don't dispute your good faith but I don't see a reason for having unnecessary huge output examples which don't give any new information. Or do you think the other programs aren't able to produce such triangles? Should we have extra pages for all the other languages too? --Andreas Perstinger (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- --- that's one of the reasons that I'm a contributor to Rosetta Code --- to demonstrate what a computer programming language can do --- and for the most part, has been a fairly friendly accommodating place to demonstrate some computer programming. I vote that example outputs (not on the main page) not be deleted because someone doesn't see a need. Obviously, I thought there was a need, which, as far as I can see, is being ignored and/or overlooked. If ten people vote for deletion, and one votes for it being kept (apparently, because there is a need), I would hope the others would see why it should be kept. This comes close the very kernel or essence (I think) of Rosetta Code). There are many contributors that spend a lot of time on Rosetta Code (for many and varied reasons), not the least of which is to show and/or demonstrate the varied and numerous computer programming languages, ... and their various output (results). I'm not a big fan in having to trying to prove of something's worth, or the need to justify it because some people don't value it's worth. ("Joke" languages come to mind, and that's can of worms that probably shouldn't be opened). Just because I don't see a need for something, doesn't mean the contribution is worthless and should be deleted (whether or not I'm an administrator). Somebody (who doesn't care enough to vote) may want to have the ability to view such a page. There is always someone who wants to see the page (that's why I included it here on Rosetta Code), and since no one is burdened with viewing it unless they want to see it, let it stand on it's own merits. There are a lot of pages (outputs) that I feel shouldn't be created and/or included on Rosetta Code, but I won't be the one that says they aren't needed and have no worth, and try to have them deleted as being unnecessary or having no need. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm fine with demonstrating small example outputs but I think there should be a limit. The main point should be the code and if anyone is interested in more results s/he can run the code on their own computer. This shouldn't be too hard for anyone interested in Rosetta Code. --Andreas Perstinger (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- The existence isn't causing anyone any pain, you only get here if you want to view the larger Sierpinski triangle output (via clicking on the link on the main task page). I built the example for a separate page so only if someone is interested in what a larger Sierpinski triangle looks like, they can view it here. Another entry has seven examples (on the main page), but nobody is complaining about that.