Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things
 
PerlMonks  

Re^5: At the risk of saying something stupid-but-obvious about Roman Numerals

by mr_mischief (Monsignor)
on May 15, 2014 at 13:23 UTC ( [id://1086135]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^4: At the risk of saying something stupid-but-obvious about Roman Numerals
in thread At the risk of saying something stupid-but-obvious about Roman Numerals

Again, you are stubbornly missing the point. The attempt isn't to write a way to convert Roman numerals. It's not even a search to find a proper and general way to do it. It's to find a random short string that happens to do just enough to meet the criteria set forth, regardless of any errors it may contain in the more general case. Finding this random short string is the nature of the search. That's the only reason for the search. Nobody's going to use that string as a Roman numeral conversion routine outside of the code golf competition.

  • Comment on Re^5: At the risk of saying something stupid-but-obvious about Roman Numerals

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: At the risk of saying something stupid-but-obvious about Roman Numerals
by wjw (Priest) on May 15, 2014 at 13:58 UTC
    Seems to me the whole thing is hardly worth getting nasty over. What is the point?

    I have never played this 'code golf' (or heard of it 'til now for that matter). But it seems to be sort of like a crossword puzzle. One does it for their own reasons. Some folks talk about them because they find them interesting. Others see them as a waste of time. Yet others see them as occassional interesting diversions from which something can be learned. All pretty valid points of view in my opinion. After all, they reflect personal tastes and interests.

    I have seen nothing in the article in question (eyeopslikeamosquito) which says that it is or should be of importance to anyone other than the author. He is simply sharing his interest. I don't see anything in the root of this post (sundialsvc4) that says that the poster demands that anyone share his point of view. He is simply sharing it. And it seems like a reasonable expression of critical thinking. The author of the root node does not see the point, but is willing to sit back and watch (while enjoying popcorn and presumably the watching). So what?

    Again, so what? I recently posted that I have stubbornly rejected doing anything object oriented for a long time, at my own expense. I didn't see the point. So, for obvious reasons, I too could/should be riduculed?

    Come on! It is fun, it is interesting! Enjoy the hell out of it! But, Jeesh! It ain't worth vitriol!

    update: Just occurred to me; this is a point of view, not aimed at anyone, just shared... :-) There is absolutely no technical expertise, explicit or implied.

    update:Node should have been placed above this one as there is nothing nasty stated here. My bad, and my apologies to mr_mischief.

    ...the majority is always wrong, and always the last to know about it...
    Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1086135]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others chilling in the Monastery: (5)
As of 2024-04-16 18:41 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found