The only time I have found the solutions page useful is when I was working on problem 100, which I'd been thinking about on and off for several months. Eventually, I gave up and looked at the solution there, and was absolutely none the wiser as to how it was solved! I thought about it more over the next few months, and eventually just copied and ran that program, put it into PE, and looked at the forum, and finally understood how I should have solved the problem.<br>
<br>Without the solutions page, I would probably never have been able to solve the problem, and would know even less about Diophantine Equations than I currently do. However, the only value was the actual numerical solution, since when I have solved a problem myself and want to see if my answer could be improved, I just look in the forum where I can see a range of methods of solution instead of just one.<br>
<br>That said, I vote to keep the solutions (providing they are written by the page editor) since IMO they do no harm.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 24/02/2008, <b class="gmail_sendername">Daniel Fischer</b> <<a href="mailto:daniel.is.fischer@web.de">daniel.is.fischer@web.de</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Am Sonntag, 24. Februar 2008 11:37 schrieb Cale Gibbard:<br> <br>> Hello,<br> ><br> > It seems that I'm getting sucked into this argument solely due to my<br> > unwillingness to allow people to damage useful content that has been<br>
> added to the Haskell wiki.<br> <br> <br>I'm sorry, I was angry that someone posted my code on that page and<br> over-reacted. I apologize.<br> <br><br> ><br> > This started a couple of weeks ago when a user by the name Marypoppins<br>
> decided to arbitrarily remove all the Euler Problems solutions from<br> > the wiki. I treated this as vandalism and immediately reverted all the<br> > changes.<br> ><br> > I'd like to state up front that I otherwise have no personal stake in<br>
> this, since the solutions pages are not ones that I've made<br> > significant contributions to, nor have I even spent a significant<br> > amount of time working on Project Euler problems. (They have not<br>
> enough universal quantifiers in them for my tastes.)<br> ><br> > I do however, think it's important to not allow valid contributions to<br> > the wiki to be damaged by people without good reason.<br> <br>
<br>Agreed, and the page with the code may indeed be considered a valid<br> contribution. However, it certainly would be more valuable if it wasn't bare<br> code, but also included explanations of the mathematical or programmatical<br>
ideas behind it.<br> <br> The page with just the answers I cannot but find worthless.<br> <br><br> <br> > Why is this even the least bit bad? If you publish a bunch of<br> > problems, expect people to publish a bunch of solutions to them. They<br>
> will do this regardless of what you demand, since there's educational<br> > value to others in doing so.<br> <br> <br>The educational value would be more visible if the code was explained, but<br> okay.<br> <br>
<br> > If Project Euler is instead, not a contest, as people on the Talk<br> > pages on the wiki have claimed, then nobody should have any problem<br> > with publishing solutions, as the only person one could possibly cheat<br>
> by looking up the solution is oneself. However, if one had already<br> > given up on solving said problem, then there would likely be<br> > significant educational value in reading a solution to it.<br> ><br>
> > On top of that, the code for many problems isn't even Haskell, but C,<br> > > WTF!<br> ><br> > This indeed is a problem, as it is the Haskell wiki after all.<br> > However, I feel that it's more valuable to keep such solutions until<br>
> such time as their Haskell counterparts are made available.<br> <br> <br>I disagree, more valuable would be an explanation of the ideas behind it, and<br> perhaps contrasting a C (python,...) programme with a Haskell one to<br>
highlight the different approaches.<br> <br><br> ><br> > > Other code was submitted without consent of the author, copied from the<br> > > PE fora, which are restricted access and so, even if perhaps not legally,<br>
> > but in spirit, do not fall under the legitimate resources for<br> > > haskellwiki: "You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or<br> > > copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT<br>
> > COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!"<br> ><br> > This is a legitimate concern. If the copyright of the original authors<br> > can be proved, said solutions should indeed be removed.<br> <br> <br>
PE has a share-alike license, the very least to be demanded if someone posts<br> other's code is proper attribution.<br> <br><br> Daniel<br> <br><br> _______________________________________________<br> Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br> <a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br> </blockquote></div><br>