|
==When is "fully linted" not idiomatic==
When the user
# Knows their code is not idiomatic.
# Knows that their non-idiomatic, rejected style is nevertheless not picked up by an automatic linter.
You carefully ignore that RC is for idiomatic code and fill RC with code written in a style rejected by the Python community. You leave comments on typing, that are not Python. You remove templates pointing out that your code should be improved. You employ libraries and a methodology Python programmers are not taught - It's Python not Haskell.
You cry bully when you don't get your way. (Yet again).
RC shouldn't be turned into a showcase for your many un-idiomatic code samples. Yes we know Python can be written like that, but the community rejected it.
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 09:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
You don't have the standing to make those judgements. The only interesting comments about compliance with standards are made by the widely-used linters. Linters are '''frequently''' somewhat unflattering about your own imperative code, but I make no comment.
The only interesting and instructive Rosetta comment is an alternative draft. If you prefer a different style of functional Python, just contribute a better draft – we will all learn and benefit, and I, for one, look forward to that.
The goal of Rosetta code is to provide contrastive insight. Parading poorly-linted but allegedly regimental uniform on frequently unreliable and weakly-conceived code, while shrilly declaring yourself to be a higher authority than the tooling – well, if that provides contrastive insight, then I'm not sure that it is insight into computational issues. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 10:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
|