4
\$\begingroup\$

This answer on MSO contains a list of rules that code golf challenges on Stackoverflow should follow. I think it would be a good idea to discuss which of those rules we want to adopt for this site. Obviously the bits about frequencies and new users don't apply here, but others seem sensible.

For example one of the rules is that the problem as well as the "winning condition" should be clearly specified. I think that one should be pretty uncontroversial.

Another rule is that challenges should not be language-specific. Given that the first question on this site already breaks this rule, this is clearly a bit more controversial. On the one hand I rather like that rule. On the other hand the scope of this site is a lot wider than those of code golfs on Stackoverflow, so maybe that rule is not necessary / too restrictive.

So, discuss: Which rules should we adopt for this site?

asked Jan 27, 2011 at 21:13
\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ About first question already breaking this rule I think, that we need either some tag for TRUE-codegolf (fully accepted by rules), or just all true golf questions have to have more, than one tag (like rosetta stone, lang agnostic and codegolf on SO), and that another perl hack just will not have rosetta stone. BTW, I don't like both tags (rosetta and agnostic). \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 27, 2011 at 22:18
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ "Bonus points" are appearing on quite a few questions, and I feel this breaks the objectivity of code-golf questions. I think you could offer a discount to encourage people to attempt the bonus, eg "smallest number of characters to do X. 10% discount on the character count if it also does Y. 25% discount if the answer only uses symbols (no alphanumerics)" \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 9, 2011 at 3:44

5 Answers 5

7
\$\begingroup\$

Don't ask trivial code-golfs and then complain when people give you trivial answers.

There are several "languages" that can print "Hello World" with one character, so why do we keep seeing questions asking for it. Instead of trying to develop rules to exclude those languages just pick a different phrase

answered Feb 1, 2011 at 13:58
\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

This is more of a meta answer, but hopefully still useful. Here are some ideas I have:

  • Add rules to the faq.
  • Have one general set of rules, but allow questioners to specify adaptations to the rules. Maybe a set of standard categories, where the questioner can tag his/her choice? Maybe use tag wikis for this.
  • I don't see what's wrong restricting to one language. Sometimes it's fun doing a vim-golf or java-golf, etc. Otherwise it will be the same small set of languages always winning.
answered Jan 27, 2011 at 21:20
\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ Nice idea! Tags: ruby-golf, perl-golf, rosetta-golf... \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 27, 2011 at 22:21
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @Nakilon Interesting idea. Not sure if [code-golf] (again, assuming we widen scope) + [ruby] / [perl] / [language-agnostic] would be better. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 27, 2011 at 22:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ Add rules to the faq. # golf rules should be in code-golf tag wiki; and in main FAQ should be links to code-golf wiki and to some place (maybe question in meta) with rules of tagging. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 28, 2011 at 18:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ I wonder if people will take advantage of a language specific golf to farm rep? For example for every golfquestion just add a 'ruby-golf', 'perl-golf'... etc. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 2, 2011 at 4:33
4
\$\begingroup\$

The original Perlgolf rules could be of interest.

It might be easier to adopt some of these tried-and-tested rules instead of reinventing the square wheel yet another time.

answered Jan 30, 2011 at 16:44
\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ We have our own, language-agnostic, rules from Stack Overflow. And that's a perfectly good triangular wheel. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 7, 2011 at 20:27
2
\$\begingroup\$

I do agree with generally trying to be language-agnostic. (Say I, who created the tag on SO!)

I also think questions need to have (some shade of) objective criteria for deciding which entry is "best". It absolutely can't simply be "whatever the OP likes best" or even "whatever the voters like best", because then it's just a popularity contest, which is not what Stack Exchange is designed for.

answered Jan 27, 2011 at 21:17
\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Perhaps there should be a set of default, community set rules, and each OP can add other rules. Of course all the rules have to be objective. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 27, 2011 at 21:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Juan: Yes, I agree with your suggested approach. +1 \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 27, 2011 at 21:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ You, who created tag ..) tell me what is the difference between it and rosetta-stone? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 27, 2011 at 22:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Nakilon: language-agnostic means "this question applies to most any language". rosetta-stone means "submit solutions in as many languages as you please". \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 27, 2011 at 22:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ good to know, thanks, we should include this explanations in tags' wiki if use them on this site. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 27, 2011 at 22:38
-1
\$\begingroup\$

I think the title 'Code Golf' is too narrow for this branch of stackexchanche. 'Recreational Programming' or 'Coding for Fun' or something similar would suit it better.

answered Mar 9, 2011 at 1:10
\$\endgroup\$
1

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.