Anonymous user
User talk:DanBron/Game of Nim: Difference between revisions
m
Paddy3118 moved page Talk:Game of Nim to User talk:DanBron/Game of Nim
(test case for code golf) |
m (Paddy3118 moved page Talk:Game of Nim to User talk:DanBron/Game of Nim) |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 12:
--[[User:DanBron|DanBron]] ([[User talk:DanBron|talk]]) 14:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
:Hi DanBron. How does code golf help to compare languages? The whole idea of golfing seems to be to obfuscate rather than elucidate. I don't think that golfing helps RC myself. -1
:--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 16:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
: Code Golf is one of the things we ''do not do here'', along with performance comparisons. The problem with CG is that it tends to produce excessively compressed entries, which usually goes against the principle of ''idiomaticity of example''; each example should show a newcomer to the language how they should solve that particular task. (The problem with performance comparisons? Well, apart from nasty code, they also suffer from being impossible to compare except on one particular system; they're just too localized in both space and time.) –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] ([[User talk:Dkf|talk]]) 07:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
: There already seems to be a trend on the wiki to publish code examples as compactly as possible, often at the expense of readability and extensibility, explicit code golf challenges will probably only make it worse. [[User:Fwend|Fwend]] ([[User talk:Fwend|talk]]) 09:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
:: I agree that Code Golf doesn't really fit in with RC's mission to help users of one language learn how equivalent tasks may be done in new languages. However, some people (myself included) find Code Golf to be more fun as it provides a bit more of a challenge. If there aren't really any issues with the task itself, can it just be required that submissions contain a "normal" solution, and any Code Golf solutions are optional/bonus points?
::--[[User:Ooorah|Ooorah]] ([[User talk:Ooorah|talk]]) 19:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Hi Ooorah, I think we are more likely at the stage of wanting to remove this task altogether but no one wanting to be the first to take that step and waiting for the task to wither. I don't think golfing adds anything to RC's stated task. It's a million miles from writing idiomatic code by its very definition.
:::Now you've edited the task and brought it back to our collective consideration maybe it will go? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 06:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
::::Other than the explanation being a little confusing at first, I don't really think that there's much difference between this task and [[Towers of Hanoi]], and it's at least slightly more programmatic than [[Bulls and cows/Player]]. I can completely understand if you want to cut out the Code Golf part of it, but I don't believe there is a reason to remove the task in its entirety.
::::--[[User:Ooorah|Ooorah]] ([[User talk:Ooorah|talk]]) 13:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
::::: I'd also like to see the task stay, it's a reasonably well-known game and very suitable for programming (although the computer always wins if it's allowed to make the first move). [[User:Fwend|Fwend]] ([[User talk:Fwend|talk]]) 16:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I think Nim is a valid task. Just remove that "code golf" requirement. --[[User:Hajo|Hajo]] ([[User talk:Hajo|talk]]) 08:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
| |||