⚠️ Warning: This is a draft ⚠️

This means it might contain formatting issues, incorrect code, conceptual problems, or other severe issues.

If you want to help to improve and eventually enable this page, please fork RosettaGit's repository and open a merge request on GitHub.

{{Vptopic |topic=Task types |summary=Alternate taxonomy for tasks }} We currently have two types of "live" tasks, [[Template:Task|Task]] and [[Template:Puzzle]]. I've since learned that some of the tasks under the "Puzzle" banner are classic computing questions, while others are not. I'd like to suggest an alternate taxonomy:

  • Practice Task -- Something which has regular importance in "real-world" programming, but may not be particularly interesting from a language guts perspective. [[User Output - text]] and [[Creating a Window]] would fall under this classification.
  • Theory Task -- Something which may not be practical, but is descriptive of a question programming theory and how that question maps into aa particular language. [[Lucas-Lehmer test]] and [[Sieve of Eratosthenes]] would fall under this classification.
  • Comprehensive Task -- (Needs a better name) A task which goes beyond basic understanding of most languages and may be a composite application of multiple concepts. [[RCHQ9+]], [[24 game]] and [[24 game Player]] would fall under this classification.

I would like to deprecate [[Template:Puzzle]], and gradually shuffle the members of [[Template:Task]] to using different types. Also, our current [[:Category:Solutions by Programming Task|task categorization tree is a mess]], and these could serve as a new first round of that category.

Thoughts? Alternatives? --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 13:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC) :Yeah I thought the task tree would work out better. I'm not sure how these categories will make tasks easier to find. A bad sorting algorithm may not be practical, but if I'm new to programming I may think it is. Most likely I think a user in that situation would try to find "sorting algorithms" if they're looking for a category. Basically I'm concerned that people who don't necessarily understand the usefulness or frequency of use of a programming problem they're working on won't be able to use a system like the one you suggested. As if they could figure out the current one...--[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 14:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

:: (Geh. I need to force preview on myself.) I may be able to alleviate some of that by adding the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CategoryTree category tree] extension. However, most of RC's repeat contributors fall under the 'theoretical interest' area, while most looking for practical information appear to be coming in directly via search engines. People ''specifically'' looking for practical code to deal with their immediate interests aren't currently browsing through the SbPT category tree. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 14:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC) :::The category tree extension probably would help a lot as long as it doesn't take up too many system resources. How the current users act is important, but also we need to design for how we want new users to use the site. If you want the users to decide that (which I guess is the wiki way), then I guess we can go with whatever seems to fit the way they use it now and see how they react. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 15:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)