Template talk:Eff note: Difference between revisions
My opinion is shifting.
No edit summary |
(My opinion is shifting.) |
||
Line 2:
: Agreed. —[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 12:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
: Also don't care for the template. An example need not be efficient to be illustrative (If that were the case, the basic bitmap storage task would be unforgivable...). If efficiency is desired, but not mandated by the task description, it should be considered whether it be provided as an additional solution for side-by-side comparison. If the task description is written in a way that denies efficiency (as the basic bitmap storage task is), and an efficient approach is desired, I don't see a problem with creating a task for the purpose. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 14:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
:: I just noticed this being applied to a number of tasks today, and my opinion on the template shifted as a result. At this point, I think I could work in a structural way to encourage contributors to provide the "efficient" example for comparison, or a "{clear|idiomatic|pure|readable|etc}" example for where that's a concern, so I don't think my original concerns hold as much weight. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 17:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
:I made this template because I saw little notes on examples that seemed to say "my language is so awesome that I consider this task 'stupid to do' in it" or at least "I don't even know why you're thinking about doing this in my language, but here's how in case someone is holding a gun to your head." I know they didn't say that directly (and maybe the authors didn't even think that when they wrote the notes), but I wanted to avoid any accidental "reading between the lines" that happened when I saw the comments. If no one wants this, they can undo the four or five edits that put them in and get rid of it. I can just keep grumbling to myself. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 14:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
| |||