Anonymous user
User talk:Hout: Difference between revisions
→None Pythonic code: comment
(→None Pythonic code: comment) |
|||
Line 307:
::::: The value of Rosetta Code is comparative (as the landing page puts it: ''to aid a person with a grounding in one approach to a problem in learning another''), and the most valuable form of Rosetta commentary is simply an alternative draft. I have no objection at all to anyone else code. My only comment is the code I add. Enjoy adding some of your own ! [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 13:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
:::::: So you think that your Functional Python serves as as inspiration for prospective functional programmers? By presenting another approach to the problem? Is that your aspiration? Why even bother with Python then, instead of sticking to a functional language which is much better suited for the purpose? Your Functional Python can hardly be taken seriously by a functional programmer, it looks rather like some silly joke; while someone unfamiliar with FP will likely be put off at the sight of it, instead of being inspired. Here's an idea: why don't you try functional assembly; or even better perhaps, functional Brainfuck? Your code is already esoteric in the true sense, since understanding it requires both knowledge of Python and FP, while being further pointlessly and obsessively obfuscated by such gems as "lambda x: func(x)". But sure, go ahead and pound everything with your Maslow hammer if you like... [[User:Dick de Bill|Dick de Bill]] ([[User talk:Dick de Bill|talk]]) 17:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
::: The former is no substitute for (or guide to) the latter [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 01:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
| |||