Vladi Belperchinov-Shabanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Anthony J. Breeds-Taurima" wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > While it is still fresh in everyone's minds, I thought I should
>> > make some notes on possible improvements for the next apocalypse.
>> >
>> > 1. Timing
>> >
>> > We probably all spent more time on this than we can afford.
>> > I think 5 days was too long; 2-3 days feels about right.
>> >
>> > It seems fairest to announce the game start time two weeks (say)
>> > before the event, to give people time to prepare.
>>
>> I think that 5 days was good. Or you could have 2 games going
>> Newbies and Guru. The Holes would be the same BUT the duration would be
>> different. ie (Newbies 5 days, Guru 2-3 days). Update the scores and announce
>> the winners at the 2-3 day mark BUT don't release the code. Would that be too
>> cruel a punishment for the gurus.
>
> I think a weekend would be fine (i.e. 2 non-working days)
I don't. I don't tend to do much coding on the weekend, but I do quite
a bit in the evening and on the train during the week. And I think
that drawing a distinction between newbies and gurus is somewhat
invidious too, but I can't begin to articulate why.
I thought the length of the Christmas competition was maybe a day too
long. I was still having ideas to try almost up 'til the deadline and,
indeed, I didn't get my entry down to 91 strokes until late on the
penultimate day, and I'd certainly not like to see it going much
shorter than that.
>> > 2. Tie-breaking rule
>> >
>> > I chose to break ties by rewarding the first to post.
>> > I suppose other ways are possible (e.g. reward the more
>> > efficient one) but they all seem a little artificial.
>>
>> This seems fair to me. First in Best dressed. I don't think that
>> efficiency and Golf should ever be mentioned in the same sentence :)
>
> `First wins' is not good IMO, perhaps some additional scoring like
> for example using non-average(usual) solution is better? this is
> arguable of cource but it is just an idea... of cource this won't
> be factor for different strokes count solutions...
The beauty of 'first in breaks the tie' is that it's objective. Which
is a good thing. And even if you did come up with a subjective measure
based on 'non standardness' or 'elegance' or whatever, the results
show that once you get down to minimal length, often the only
difference between two solutions is the choice of variable names or
where they put the brackets in a regex, so you'd need another tie
breaker anyway.
It might be nice to see a "Judge's Prize" for the solution that the
judge liked best. It doesn't even have to be the shortest. (It doesn't
even have to qualify, given how much "-p 11..&" tickled the judge this
time 'round)
>> > 3. Number of Holes
>> >
>> > Though 9/18 is traditional in golf, five seemed sufficient to
>> > provide an interesting spread of scores. Any more than five
>> > may be unnecessarily cruel.
>>
>> No more than 6.
>
> 8 :)
Well, it is a round number, I'll give you that. But I think I prefer six.
>> > 4. Hole Difficulty
>> >
>> > When I posted the game, I thought the holes were too easy. In
>> > retrospect, I think they were about right because they were
>> > simple enough to allow novice golfers to have a go, while still
>> > providing a challenge for the elite golfer.
>>
>> This level was good. As a newbie, I was certain that I could
>> complete the game thought I wouldn't be too far off the pace.
>
> nothing is too easy :) I think any task wich can be solved with
> regular, readable, non-tricky, few lines (screenpage?) solution will
> be ok
Easy is definitely good. It might be nice to see one hole be a 'Take
this program and make it shorter' type challenge though. And that
could be something with reasonably complex behaviour...
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
