Smalltalk › Squeak › Squeak - Dev

RE: Polynomial Division Challenge

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

3 messages Options

J J-6

RE: Polynomial Division Challenge

I didn't see the quote about being restricted to scripting languages. And if the measure has something to do with being the most concise there are languages that are better (and more clear) at that then any of the languages you listed.

> From: [hidden email]

> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:48:42 +0200
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Polynomial Division Challenge
>
> On Jul 12, 2007, at 8:37 , Ken G. Brown wrote:
>
> > Here's a chance for you whizzes to give Squeak some positive exposure:
> >
> > Polynomial Division Challenge
> > <http://codegolf.com/polynomial-division>
> > <http://codegolf.com/leaderboard/competition/polynomial-division/>
> >
> > Wouldn't it be great to see Squeak in the top spots?
>
> "You're not just limited to Perl either - PHP, Python and Ruby are
> all available too."
>
> Besides, competing on "number of keystrokes"? Not too useful a
> measure IMHO.
>
> More positively, I *do* think we should make stdin/stdout/stderr
> easily accessible from the default image. FilePlugin should provide
> that.
>
> - Bert -
>
>
>
>

See what you’re getting into…before you go there. Check it out!

J J-6

RE: Polynomial Division Challenge

Or maybe we could contact them and get Smalltalk to be one of the accepted languages?

> From: [hidden email]

> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:34:18 +0000
> Subject: Re: Polynomial Division Challenge
>
> Ken G. Brown wrote:
> "Here's a chance for you whizzes to give Squeak some positive exposure:
>
> Polynomial Division Challenge
> <http://codegolf.com/polynomial-division>
> <http://codegolf.com/leaderboard/competition/polynomial-division/>
>
> Wouldn't it be great to see Squeak in the top spots?"
>
> Yeah it does look interesting. Unfortunately they don't allow code in any languages besides Perl, PHP, Python, and Ruby. I went to their "submit entry" page, and that's all they allow you to select for the language. There's no "other" category. Pity.
>
> I mean, it makes sense in a way. They have their language setup all preconfigured so all you have to do is submit code, not the whole development environment, which is essentially what they'd have to allow you to do if they allowed submissions in any language.
>
> It looks like they have the whole testing setup automated. That's the reason they want input in stdin and output in stdout. They can just run the test as a batch job as soon as you submit your code. You can submit code multiple times as well, and check back and see what their test results were. They limit you to one submission every 2 minutes, so it sounds like the testing goes in rapid fire fashion.
>
> According to the site, their language selection is actually less restrictive than before. They say Code Golf is based on another site called Perl Golf, which I assume only accepted Perl code.
>
> In any case, there's nothing saying we couldn't take the problems they pose, write them up in Smalltalk and compete outside the site, comparing against their stats. We just wouldn't be able to submit them to Code Golf. It takes the fun out of it a little when you're essentially preaching to the converted.
>
> >From what I hear, Smalltalk has gotten exposure in the Code Katas series, which is essentially the same thing, solving problems with code.
>
> ---Mark
> [hidden email]
>

Local listings, incredible imagery, and driving directions - all in one place! Find it!

J J-6

RE: Polynomial Division Challenge

In reply to this post by J J-6

> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:25:57 +0000
> Subject: Re: Polynomial Division Challenge
>
> Hmm! I see what you're saying. You make a really good argument against Code Golf. After I read your note I thought to myself, "Well it was based on Perl Golf for crying out loud." I felt kind of dumb not seeing that as a red flag. I paid a little attention to the metrics that were used, like "keystrokes",

If they are using keystrokes as the criteria then they don't count it right. All those perl programs should have at least 50% more then the literal characters in the source file since you have to hold down shift (or worse on non-English keyboards) for at least half of what is in the program.

>but I didn't fully consider their implications. You're right. It just encourages ugly code. When I looked at the stats of the "top 10" winners in the Polynomial Division problem, I noticed that the Ruby and Perl versions
> were winning out over the Python versions. I've read that Pythoners tend to be more concerned with a "correct way to do things", which puts them at a disadvantage using this sort of criteria. You're right that things
> like the length of method names can also put a program at an advantage or disadvantage in the rankings.

Well, actually one must keep in mind Perl has made "concise" synonymous with "unreadable" but it doesn't have to be so. Haskell, for example, is in fact quite a bit more concise then Perl (except in the most trivial of cases), but very readable even if you don't know the language.

Missed the show? Watch videos of the Live Earth Concert on MSN. See them now!