3 ms·

> better content That's debatable. I suppose it's better than nothing for complete noobs, but a lot of the examples on that site are even worse than the crap

> better content That's debatable. I suppose it's better than nothing for complete noobs, but a lot of the examples on that site are even worse than the crap found on Stack Overflow. Take this for example: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/FizzBuzz#ES6 http://rosettacode.org/wiki/FizzBuzz#ES6 Way to overcomplicate FizzBuzz!

kerkeslager 7y ago
Did you really just quote two words, "better content", out of context? Please go back and answer the question "Better content than what?" before assuming you know what's debatable. > Way to overcomplicate FizzBuzz! So write a simpler one and post it. It's a Wiki.
- ravenstine 7y ago
  Anybody reasonable person reading my comment would know what I'm talking about; the context is directly above it. Using your proposed logic, quoting "Rosetta Code has more content and better content" wouldn't have been enough because it's missing context. There's no need to be fussy about this. > So write a simpler one and post it. It's a Wiki. It's my prerogative to criticize other people's content. Simultaneously, I'm under no obligation to write content on someone else's website for free.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    Better content than what, ravenstine? If the context was so clear, then you can prove that you understood the context.
    - Noumenon72 7y ago
      Why should you need to ask him that when you wrote it? There's no other interpretation than "Rosetta Code has better content than Programming-Idioms". It's impossible for him to miss that. And it is indeed debatable.
      - kerkeslager 7y ago
        > Why should you need to ask him that when you wrote it? I'm asking him that because if he wants to debate a point I made, he should understand what point I've actually made. It's clear he didn't understand my point. > There's no other interpretation than "Rosetta Code has better content than Programming-Idioms". It's impossible for him to miss that. De facto there is another interpretation, because ravenstine didn't interpret it that way. You would think that it would be impossible for him to miss that, but it's apparent that he did miss that. > And it is indeed debatable. "Rosetta Code has better content than Programming Idioms" is certainly debatable, but if you wanted to debate that, wouldn't it make sense to start by comparing something from Programming Idioms to something from Rosetta Code? He didn't bring up Programming Idioms at all--the only site he compares Rosetta Code to is completely irrelevant (Stack Overflow). I'm not sure what point he's debating, but it's certainly not "Rosetta Code has better content than Programming Idioms".

kerkeslager 7y ago

Did you really just quote two words, "better content", out of context? Please go back and answer the question "Better content than what?" before assuming you know what's debatable. > Way to overcomplicate FizzBuzz! So write a simpler one and post it. It's a Wiki.

ravenstine 7y ago
Anybody reasonable person reading my comment would know what I'm talking about; the context is directly above it. Using your proposed logic, quoting "Rosetta Code has more content and better content" wouldn't have been enough because it's missing context. There's no need to be fussy about this. > So write a simpler one and post it. It's a Wiki. It's my prerogative to criticize other people's content. Simultaneously, I'm under no obligation to write content on someone else's website for free.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Better content than what, ravenstine? If the context was so clear, then you can prove that you understood the context.
  - Noumenon72 7y ago
    Why should you need to ask him that when you wrote it? There's no other interpretation than "Rosetta Code has better content than Programming-Idioms". It's impossible for him to miss that. And it is indeed debatable.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      > Why should you need to ask him that when you wrote it? I'm asking him that because if he wants to debate a point I made, he should understand what point I've actually made. It's clear he didn't understand my point. > There's no other interpretation than "Rosetta Code has better content than Programming-Idioms". It's impossible for him to miss that. De facto there is another interpretation, because ravenstine didn't interpret it that way. You would think that it would be impossible for him to miss that, but it's apparent that he did miss that. > And it is indeed debatable. "Rosetta Code has better content than Programming Idioms" is certainly debatable, but if you wanted to debate that, wouldn't it make sense to start by comparing something from Programming Idioms to something from Rosetta Code? He didn't bring up Programming Idioms at all--the only site he compares Rosetta Code to is completely irrelevant (Stack Overflow). I'm not sure what point he's debating, but it's certainly not "Rosetta Code has better content than Programming Idioms".