Talk:Sierpinski triangle/REXX output 64
Return to "Sierpinski triangle/REXX output 64" page.
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.
- Well, good luck with that. I can see your point, especially those outputs on the main page, which we all have to scroll through when perusing the outputs of all the various computer programming language entries. In this case, there is no scrolling or "forced" eyeballing, people have to click on a link to view the output, there is no encumbrance on their time or main-page scrolling when the output is on another webpage. If you want to see a larger example output, it's there if you want to view it. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 19:59, 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)
- Well, I think it does have to do with the output of the program. Making the graph viewable (in it's entirety, without scrolling) is an important part of viewing it and realizing/observing the "big picture" (no pun intended). I can't be responsible for what you do on your computer (or browser) as far as viewability, nor do I assume that what's viewable on my monitor is viewable on yours. I didn't use a smaller font to make it look good on my monitor, the intent was to minimize the apparent acreage (size) of the output viewing area to make to more wholly viewable without scrolling, that is, so the person viewing the output could see the overall graph (the output presentation). -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 19:59, 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)
- When you start calling/naming things unnecessary huge, you're front-loading your argument. You've already condemned the output as being unnecessary (that's your opinion, of course), as well as huge (another not-well defined term), both of which are debatable or even argumentative. Then you use another pejorative term, it's an "extra page", plus a strawman argument about having them for all the other languages. Nobody (but I can only speak for myself) is saying that we have to have extra pages for ALL the other languages. I can only speak for what I added/created. I saw a need to show/demonstrate what the REXX entry could compute and show, and at that time, no other example shown that it could be done in another computer programming language. But to answer your question about other programs not being able to produce such triangles --- I don't have those programming languages installed on my computer, and am not able to execute those entries to verify or validate the answer(s) to your question. For the few that languages that I know well enough, the answer in some cases is no, but I'm not qualified to speak about the limitations of those languages, but because of the (output) page in question, anyone can see that REXX can produce the output, but that wasn't the intent of that output page (that is, to show how big a triangle that could be produced). So, in summary, I don't think the output page was unnecessary, nor do I think it was huge (now, images of the order of megabytes, that's huge ...), and it does show new information. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 19:59, 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)
- I've been down that road before. Not anyone can run the code on their own computer. First of all, there's the expertise needed to install the computer language (and it's libraries and what-not), and that is no small matter of time and effort. I wouldn't install a language just to see some output. In this case, I've already provided an example of the output for others who can't (who don't have the ability or/and time) or won't install yet another language just to view the output for a particular case. --- I've been down that path with various computer languages (in the not so distant past) to try to produce a list of the ranking of computer programming languages (as far as the number of entries) for Rosetta Code tasks, and after wasting nearly a week of trying to run an example (I thought the easiest and simplest to understand), I still couldn't get the Ruby entry to work (with no responses to my request for help on why it didn't work), and after trying to get another programming language to install and work, I just gave up and wrote my own in REXX instead. Now, I think I'm fairly knowledgeable about installing software, but it's not for the faint of heart, you more or less have to be motivated to want it to work (at least, have a vested interested in installing a computer language --- for instance, if you want to use/develop code in it, albeit only for testing for instance). All I wanted was a complete list (ranking) of language entries (I just wanted to see the top thirty or so languages), so I take umbrage about "s/he can run the code on their own computer". Easier said than done. Now, it so happens that Regina REXX (to take an example) used to be quite simple (but no longer) as for installing that language, but that's because I took the time to make the installation process to work and be functional, plus I had an understanding on how REXX behaves before I installed another version of REXX (having been using REXX almost since it's inception, way back [cough-cough] early 1980's). For a novice to the (or a) computer language, not so much. Not everybody has the experience, knowledge, time, or determination to go and install a new (different) and unfamiliar computer language on their computer. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)