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

Tracking: Missing exercises from problem specifications #629

Open
28 tasks
mk-mxp opened this issue Feb 22, 2024 · 4 comments
Open
28 tasks

Tracking: Missing exercises from problem specifications #629

mk-mxp opened this issue Feb 22, 2024 · 4 comments

Comments

@mk-mxp
Copy link
Contributor

mk-mxp commented Feb 22, 2024

Directly from configlet info.

There are 28 non-deprecated exercises in exercism/problem-specifications that are both unimplemented and not in the track config exercises.foregone array:

With canonical data:

  • bottle-song
  • complex-numbers
  • custom-set
  • dominoes
  • forth
  • game-of-life
  • go-counting
  • grep
  • ledger
  • pov
  • pythagorean-triplet
  • rational-numbers
  • react
  • rectangles
  • rest-api
  • saddle-points
  • satellite
  • sgf-parsing
  • square-root
  • word-search
  • zipper

Without canonical data:

  • dot-dsl
  • error-handling
  • hangman
  • lens-person
  • paasio
  • simple-linked-list
  • tree-building
@neenjaw
Copy link
Collaborator

neenjaw commented Feb 22, 2024

I suggest to add these to the forgone exercises:

  • the unimplemented sing-song exercises like bottle-song
  • math-centric exercises like complex-numbers, rational-numbers, Pythagorean-triplet, square-root -- these are niche topics which exclude a lot of users if you aren't already familiar with these math concepts.
  • rest-api -- very old exercise, poorly defined
  • zipper -- doesn't make very much sense in a non-functional language.

@tomasnorre
Copy link
Contributor

Wauw, I didn't expect it to be this many exercises missing, then there is still work to do :) I Only had the list from #48in24 in mind.

Would it be possible to add a priority to them? High, Medium, Low would be enough I think.

@mk-mxp
Copy link
Contributor Author

mk-mxp commented Feb 22, 2024

Would it be possible to add a priority to them? High, Medium, Low would be enough I think.

I'm too busy to look at them in more detail at the moment. But that was my plan. And also mark those as foregone that cannot or should not be implemented.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants