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
Deduplicate - size of powerset #118
Comments
Kata 1. is so bug ridden that there are bugs in its bugs. Precision issues, overflow, bad tests, missing sample tests, and whatnot. Despite possibly not accurate rank of 2., I'd vote to retire 1. just because its sheer technical crappiness. I would not even require to move languages from 1. to 2., they are all so bad. Kata 2. could be overranked, and also has some technical issues, but if I have to pick, I take anything else than 1. |
I agree with hobovsky: 1 should be retired. The pending COBOL translation of 1 may be transferred to 2 but it should be updated to include repeated elements. |
Retire 1 since it's unsalvageable |
remove both? |
Retire 1 |
In my opinion it's a useful kata to have in some capacity, since it does teach a useful maths concept. As for which one to keep I'd personally vote 1 due to more languages, though it does need a lot of fixing. If we do retire both then I'm probably going to remake the kata again but in a maintainable state, more likely to the specs of 2 than one. |
vote for retire 1 |
Save 2. :) It has an interesting mathematic formula to avoid brute force algorithms. Nevertheless the tests are not so huge to elaborate smart brute force. |
Retire 1 |
I'm the author of the COBOL pending translation in 1. 2 is not easiy to translate to COBOL because inputs can be either an array of (small) numbers or of characters, it is not possible to do it in this language. If the input is restricted to a known range of small numbers (but the range of the inputs is not specified in the description) or characters, it is significantly easier than it would be otherwise (in the general case, this kata would be significantly harder in COBOL, since there is no equivalent to prebuilt sets in this language). I won't be opposed to retire 1 since it seems a poor quality in the general opinion, but I have no idea of which approach I should follow to translate 2. |
Maybe we can set inputs of the 2nd one to array of numbers only since the purpose is to find unique entries of the array (plus it will not invalidate most solutions) |
I think that for languages where writing a type-generic code is difficult, like C, COBOL, Pascal, etc. it will be ok to restrict input to only one type, for example ints |
It's probably hard to figure it out without knowing COBOL. There are no I published a COBOL translation there, not sure it is satisfying: https://www.codewars.com/kumite/62fa0d46f96973001229c94b?sel=62fa0d46f96973001229c94b |
I approved the COBOL translation made by akar-0 but expecting and watching with you how it behaves. |
Retire 1. I had to provide an incorrect implementation in order to pass the tests in python. |
Kata 1. is voted for retirement, but it has some languages not available in 2. I will create a list of gaps to fill, but if any of translations turns out to be broken, not in a good state to be moved, or difficult to fix, I think we can skip it. Any volunteers are welcome to verify and move the translations! |
I've seen the colors printed in the tests in Python and the red color makes a confusion. Now all the test that passed in Python have the color green. I'll check in JavaScript and Ruby |
Conclusion
Filling gaps
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: