zlacker

>>belter+(OP)
Isn’t “rewrite the example code in your own style” accepted best practice for human coders, when working from an example that does what you need?

I’m not sure what would be acceptable output for a code generation tool if rewriting the examples isn’t ok and reimplementing something that performs the same function still isn’t ok. Are we automatically granting de-facto code patents on all published code now?

>>taneq+he
I can't recall a single time that's been common advice given to programmers. It's usually either don't reinvent the wheel (therefore use the source while adhering to license), or come up with your own solution.

Don't know how you would even write code in your own style. As soon as you start altering it, the result is different. It's more/less efficient.

>>wabore+Xk
Depending on language there are ton of style choices. There’s style guides as examples of trivial.

Non trivial include names, comments, logging, error checking, structure, ordering of operations that aren’t sequential.

>>njharm+2o
Yes, but all of those have impact to the actual function and performance of the proposed solution. By doing so, you are changing the solution.

Look at FizzBuzz. If you were to set strict requirements on performance (and allow for reiterative testing), the results from different groups of people would be identical. They would reach the same conclusion because that's how code works, it's far more aligned to math than it is creative writing.

So you cannot take an existing code solution and translate it to your own style. You are altering the program, the efficiency, and therefore the solution itself. Even when you do something like changing 1 single variable name!