Re: minigolf

Terje Kristensen (terjek@operamail.com) wrote: 
> One big difference is that in the minigolf, we dont submit
> solutions, just the score. in this way you dont need a ref to check
> solutions, and the person who holds the contest can also play.
> 
> we use the same testscript, so there you have some re-use of code.
> 
> What we could use is a automated leaderboard with a submit function,
> and i will create one in the not too distant future, but since the
> fuctionality is quite different, i dont think it's any point in
> using the pgas.

Unrefereed submissions seems like a very small difference to me.  And
surely any self-respecting golfer has a horror of repetition, so why
reinvent the wheel?  PGAS has a ton of excellent features and has been
polished so much over the last few months that it's almost too bright
to look it.  Come on, not reusing it seems ridiculous.  I'm not just
talking about a very nicely automated leaderboard and submission, but
already-solved problems such as nice display of non-printing
characters and best solutions for individuals in the post-mortem page,
per-solution comments ...  Not to mention the availability of the data
via XML-RPC, which gives you stuff like the charts for free.  A
central repository for past holes also sounds like a great benefit.

If I had more time I'd put my code where my mouth is.

• minigolf by Terje Kristensen
• Re: minigolf by Terje Kristensen
• Re: minigolf by Adam Spiers
• Re: minigolf by Adam Spiers