@Crackerfracks My comment is 7 years old. I know what you're saying and I don't speak like that anymore unless I want to vent frustration in private. Best wishes.
WIoHu, if you're going to critique something because it's 'not good for beginners', your explanation should meet a basic level of quality, your tone should have a modicum of respectfulness to it, and I SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE AS A BEGINNER.
I know I'm years and years after the fact, but this crap just made me feel bad about what I learned (on my own, not from this person's solution).
If you really cared about beginners, you would 1) use language that was easy for beginners to understand, and focus more on explaining exactly where and why the other person's code is 'bad', 2) approach it with a clear intent to educate and not denegrate, and 3) when you had to clarify something, take the time to disambiguate the good solution vs the bad solution.
Otherwise you're not doing it to help beginners. You're doing it to feel a sense of superiority over others because you've learned something they haven't yet.
It's bloodsport.
counting matches of '1' is simple, and could easily scale to higher radixes such as octal
could easily be extended to match multiple digits, such as .count('137')
range traversal is clear
accumulator function sum() over a list is also a nice aggregate function
well, most of times we call some functions without knowing how it's done inside the blackbox, that is abstraction. it is a fact that is not readable but you would not need to read that.
@Crackerfracks My comment is 7 years old. I know what you're saying and I don't speak like that anymore unless I want to vent frustration in private. Best wishes.
WIoHu, if you're going to critique something because it's 'not good for beginners', your explanation should meet a basic level of quality, your tone should have a modicum of respectfulness to it, and I SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE AS A BEGINNER.
I know I'm years and years after the fact, but this crap just made me feel bad about what I learned (on my own, not from this person's solution).
If you really cared about beginners, you would 1) use language that was easy for beginners to understand, and focus more on explaining exactly where and why the other person's code is 'bad', 2) approach it with a clear intent to educate and not denegrate, and 3) when you had to clarify something, take the time to disambiguate the good solution vs the bad solution.
Otherwise you're not doing it to help beginners. You're doing it to feel a sense of superiority over others because you've learned something they haven't yet.
It's bloodsport.
RU
Я так не думаю. 2 раза пробегать по длинному списку это плохо.
Супер!
nice radix conversion from int to string
counting matches of '1' is simple, and could easily scale to higher radixes such as octal
could easily be extended to match multiple digits, such as .count('137')
range traversal is clear
accumulator function sum() over a list is also a nice aggregate function
This comment has been deleted.
What a clever way to solve this problem. I wish I could've solve math problems like this earlier on.
I think its pretty readble to me.
This is awesome!
This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
When you know the math theory behind it!
Stop writing one line! It is not readable
well, most of times we call some functions without knowing how it's done inside the blackbox, that is abstraction. it is a fact that is not readable but you would not need to read that.
This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
Hi guys
please what I need to do and improve in to come up with solution like these ?
thanks
Loading more items...