Ala Qumsieh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Adam Spiers writes: > > Ala Qumsieh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > But, if that is unfair, then what do you say about people > > who do a search on > > > google to try and find algorithms for the holes? I admit to > > doing that, as > > > did some of the aliens amongst us. In my opinion, using the > > net to find > > > solutions is more unfair than writing a program to do the > > job, since the > > > first entails borrowing ideas from other humans. > > > > !! Are you seriously suggesting that none of the current golfing > > involves borrowing ideas from other humans?! > > My first few attempts at cracking the problems don't usually involve > internet searching. I only resort to that if I get stuck 20 or so strokes > behind the lead (which happens quite often), and I can't think of any better > approach to the problem. This doesn't usually help me anyway :) So, yes, > there are instances when I don't borrow ideas from other "creatures". > > Then again, you can argue that the way we reason depends upong many factors, > one of which is the influence of our teachers. So, indirectly, we ARE > borrowing ideas from other humans, but we have to draw the line somewhere.
Maybe you missed my point, which is that there is a multitude of well-established golfing tricks which were invented/discovered by many different golfers, but are in widespread use by all golfers. This is direct borrowing of ideas, but to attempt to disallow it would be insanity. > Should we ban internet searching? My vote is no. It is true that strategy > helps in golfing, but we saw from previous courses that most people converge > to pretty much the same strategy, and the person with the best golfing > ability (rather than the best strategy) ends up winning the contest. This is > a Perl "Golf" contest after all. My vote is a resounding no too. For one thing, it's impossible to regulate. Research is an integral part of the golfing process, whether it be from the web or from perldoc. > Which brings me to another question. In order to bring out the "Golf" in > "Perl Golf", should one of the courses involve a problem with a pre-defined > strategy that everyone has to follow? This would make everyone on par in > terms of their approach to the problem, and will highlight each person's > true golfing expertise. I don't like this idea. IMHO "true" golfing is about cunning syntax *and* getting the right algorithm, not just the former. Besides, it would make the holes a lot less interesting. There's only so much you can do with cunning syntax.
