Talk:Algorithm Implementation

Proposed merge with Algorithms
I disagree with the merge suggestion; the contents of this book will not fit well in Algorithms. This is supposed to be more of a reference text than a teaching book, and it will contain far more specific code than belongs in an algorithm overview. Additionally, the intent is to provide descriptions of the implementations given, so it will be helpful — please don't destroy the purpose of this book with a merge just because it's still in its infancy. ~ Booya Bazooka 23:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I also strongly disagree with the merge suggestion. The two books have different aims. To have the best learning experience books must be focused and not aim to be everything to everyone. --MShonle 00:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll follow up with some more detail: The Algorithms book is really about the computer science term "algorithm" and is concerned with the mathematics and analysis. This book is more concerned with source code implementation, and happens to use the word algorithm as a synonym for "subroutine." Perhaps a more fitting title, which would avoid merge confusion like this, would be Source code implementation? In the meantime Booyabazooka, please feel free to remove the merge notice. MShonle 01:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. That leaves one question open: Algorithms provides implemetations as part of the appendix. If we have a dedicated implementation book it might be better to provide the implementations there instead and cross link the two books.


 * Or as an alternative: The Algorithms/Appendix_A uses transclusion so it is also possible to provide the implementaions in both books. --Krischik T 06:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there will be enough overlap between the different algorithms implemented by each book to merit a combination. If, however, the _implementations author would like to subsume that role, then it would be fitting to transclude Appendix_A. It was never the goal of the Algorithms book to include implementations in every language (e.g. Perl, C#), only to include some implementations to (1) check for bugs; and (2) eliminate the chance of ambiguity and confusion. E.g., for the Algorithms book it wouldn't make sense to include implementations for both Java and C#, while for the _implementations book it might.


 * I also see the Algorithms book as a way to carefully avoid any use of the standard libraries and systems (after all, it's a way to teach people to write their own in any language), while for the _implementation book it would seem fitting to show proper use of the standard library. --MShonle 13:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Enough for a wiki
There could end up with such a large amount of stuff in this one book that it would fill its own wiki. How about we ask for a wikicode.org and do something similar? Conrad.Irwin 19:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree - :P Conrad.Irwin (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. There is now an algorithms wiki at http://www.algorithmist.com/ and http://literateprograms.org/ . Share and enjoy. --DavidCary (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well of course there's a dedicated wiki on the topic. Isn't there for everything? :-)  (and that was over two years ago) I just came across http://rosettacode.org too   Your comment implies that it's a wiki that you set up. Is that right? It looks nice, but you haven't explained how you think contributors to this wikibook should react to this. Do you think content should all be copied there? did you already do that? is the license compatible?  Having created this duplication, are you proposing that this wikibook be closed down? I assume you are at least suggesting that contributors are better off contributing there than here, but you haven't given any reasons why. -- Harry Wood (discuss • contribs) 12:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Merging another book in here
Hello, there is a book in the Mathematics subject, Efficient Prime Number Generating Algorithms. It definitely is not very mathematical at all, it just takes your simple brute force program and adds a few improvements to it. So, I wonder if something like this would fit in this book? I see that this book already has a section on prime number generation. What do you think? I don't know exactly what the purpose of this book is so I can't say if it belongs here. --NumberTheorist (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap wiki algorithms page
We have an algorithm in a bunch of languages here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Slippy_map_tilenames for converting latitude & longitude to web map tile coordinates. We can copy it here. I think the license is compatible. In fact as a wiki gardner on the OpenStreetMap wiki, I might even aim to move the content here. Which category is this? Maybe geometry. Or maybe there should be a "goespatial" category of algorithms.

-- Harry Wood (discuss • contribs) 12:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

License?
What is the license for the code published in this book? Does the general cc-by-sa apply? Or are these code snippets not above the Threshold of originality and the code is in the public domain? --91.65.191.93 (discuss) 15:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)