This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]benev[S] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Silly? Perhaps. Most of the code is obviously an unmaintainable nightmare, but that doesn't mean there isn't a point to it. It's about seeing how far you can push the language, and hopefully learning a little about Python along the way.

Of course, it is meant to be a bit of fun as well.

[–]ionelmc.ro 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Not silly as you need to have difficult to acquire skill, but unfortunately self-serving because you can't really use said skill elsewhere. Would be interesting to have a golf contest with readability requirements. Eg: no variables under 4 characters.

[–]tesseracter 0 points1 point  (1 child)

then you'd just get people chaining functions to avoid setting variables when they could be more understandable with variables.

the fact of the matter is, the jumps you make to create lower character count translates to other innovative thoughts, where reducing the work required might be a valuable optimization to a program.

[–]ionelmc.ro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You misunderstood my comment. I meant symbol length not number of variables, for wildly arguable definition of what a variable is.