Talk:Verhoeff algorithm

From Rosetta Code
Revision as of 19:53, 25 February 2022 by Rdm (talk | contribs) (→‎Omitted algorithm)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Omitted algorithm

It's bad practice to omit the algorithm from the task description. --Rdm (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, if it's considered good practice to indulge in lengthy and needless repetition from a non-ephemeral source with full past history, then I'm guilty as charged but unrepentant. --PureFox (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
If it's lengthy, it's fine to create a secondary page -- for example, perhaps Verhoeff algorithm/Lengthy Description -- with that content. As for why this is good practice:
  1. as world events are showing us, bad things do happen, and
  2. clear and concise descriptions are valuable
--Rdm (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
That's all very well but what if I had made a blunder when trying to describe the algorithm and people had relied on it? I'm not a cryptographic expert or particularly good at explaining things, but presumably the people who write these articles for Wikipedia are. Moreover, the lack of an explanation in the task description doesn't seem to have stopped people, including yourself, from submitting correct solutions. --PureFox (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
And, I myself have not written that lengthy description. But it's still possible, and a good idea. And, omitting it is bad practice. Maybe someone else will step up here? --Rdm (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, if anyone thinks they can improve on the clarity of the Wikipedia article, they're welcome to try. --PureFox (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
The wikipedia article is fine for wikipedia. But it contains a lot of content which doesn't need to be here on rosettacode.
Anyways, some of what it says -- probably the tables -- should be reflected here on rosettacode for our task description. That said, it might make sense to create a dihedral group task, and refer to that for a bulk of the description. --Rdm (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't know about that but, if anyone fancies themselves as a technical writer, they won't have to look very far for more work. The related Damm Algorithm task, which is not one of mine, also relies on the eponymous Wikipedia article for its description. --PureFox (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, we've been lazy here, and it's probably going to take years to clean up all of the messes. --Rdm (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
"lengthy and needless repetition..." I resemble that remark. I usually try to err on the side of too much information rather than not enough. Not 100% of the time but pretty darn often. --Thundergnat (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not saying that you should never repeat things - if it's short and sweet or is needed because the original source is unclear, that's fine. In this particular case, I did think the Wikipedia article was clear but to describe the algorithm adequately (with its tables and examples) I'd have needed to repeat a large part of the page.
Also and FWIW, I generally find your own tasks a model of clarity whether repetitious or not :) --PureFox (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)