Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Create intoduction for dig deeper in gigasecond exercise #3772

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

SNEAXIII
Copy link

No description provided.

Copy link
Member

@BethanyG BethanyG left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi @SNEAXIII 👋🏽

Thanks for submitting this approaches PR. While I appreciate the effort, the introduction as it currently stands is not really in line with the other exercise approaches introduction documents. I think there needs to be some more information (e.g. the general approach and key to solving the problem), and also more code/syntax examples to show how different students coded up the solution. Even with "one general approach", there can still be a variety of strategies.

For example, declaring a module-level gigasecond timedelta constant for use in the function, rather than re-creating the object for every function call. Or declaring gigasecond as a constant number.

There can be difference in how the parameters to timedelta are given (named vs positional ), and diversity in how a gigasecond itself is declared, with different students using pow() or **, or writing the number out, or using scientific notation.

I know that this might feel like we're drawing distinctions that aren't there, or adding detail that's not interesting. However, this is dig deeper, and we should be diving into as many ways (and tradeoffs for them) to solve the problem as possible. For someone new to Python, all of these details help them become familiar with details of syntax and conventions used for the language. There can also be subtle performance tradeoffs between seemingly identical solutions (like the module-level object/constant vs the in-function object).

Please take a look at the approaches for leap, grains, acronym, and pythagorean-triplet for some examples of how we've set up the documents, and gone into detail.

Should you want more/different feedback from other maintainers, I'd encourage you to make a forum post post in the Python category.

@SNEAXIII
Copy link
Author

Hi @BethanyG,
I am new here and, as you see, I don't really know what I have to put in the introduction.

Thanks for the detailed answer. Of course, you are right, and I will make the change. I was afraid of flooding people with explanations.

SNEAXIII

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants