Talk:Rock-paper-scissors: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(added comment about possible bulky programs. -- ~~~~) |
(added comment about abstraction. -- ~~~~) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::: Using proper "English" for the winner (''paper disproves Spock, paper covers rock, etc.) while not being problematic, made my program entry a bit ... bulky. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC) |
::: Using proper "English" for the winner (''paper disproves Spock, paper covers rock, etc.) while not being problematic, made my program entry a bit ... bulky. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC) |
||
::: Implementing ''rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock'' would expand programs into two directions: more abstraction, or more bulk. Abstraction is good, but harder to read and/or understand. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 08:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 08:50, 11 April 2013
Ready to come out of draft? --Michael Mol 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- I like it. I haven't seen any questions. I think people understand RPS pretty well. +1 for promotion. --Mwn3d 16:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- RPS is pretty easy to understand. I was more concerned about the AI player. I have been thinking about Rock-Paper-Lizard-Spock. Particularly, having the same codebase be able to handle both forms of the game with minimal redundant code. That might be doable as an Extra Credit goal. --Michael Mol 16:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- That should be (above) rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Using proper "English" for the winner (paper disproves Spock, paper covers rock, etc.) while not being problematic, made my program entry a bit ... bulky. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Implementing rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock would expand programs into two directions: more abstraction, or more bulk. Abstraction is good, but harder to read and/or understand. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)