

9 Hole Code Golf Challenge - codecurve
http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/16707/9-hole-challenge

======
userbinator
IMHO "code golf" would be a _lot_ more fun and interesting (and even practical
in some ways) if the goal was to produce the smallest _executable_ and not
_source_.

~~~
TylerE
Why? That's a near useless-metric on any device with more than 32kb of ram,
and highly variant on things like compiler and library minor versions.

~~~
userbinator
In a time when computation is largely constrained by memory bandwidth, the
size optimisation can have quite practical benefits. There will definitely be
variance on different systems but this is why you standardise on the system
for a competition.

Also, I think it's not quite so impressive to see a 100-byte source file turn
into a few hundred KB or few MB binary as it is to see what could be done in a
64K, 4K, or even 256 bytes binary.

~~~
TylerE
Modern processors commonly have 8MB of L2 and 16MB or even more of L3 cache.
Shaving 10kb off a binary is meaningless.

~~~
aeykie
Modern hard drives have gigabytes of storage, so shaving 100 characters of a
source code is pointless. I always thought code golf was for fun more than
anything.

------
joliv
Wow, code golf challenges are usually easy problems and the hard part is the
optimization--these problems would be hard even on their own. Good luck!

~~~
laumars
Those challenges are easier than they sound (I've already mentally prototyped
all bar one of the holes).

The real challenge would be writing each hole in a different language to avoid
penalties. I'm a bigger language whore than most, and I've 'only' coded in
about a dozen different languages, most of which I'm probably quite rusty in
now due to years of neglect (Eg Pascal). But I guess if you were stuck then
you could cheat and class object revisions as a separate language (Eg C and
C++; Pascal and Delphi; etc).

This does look fun though 😊

------
fjcaetano
Seems quite interesting. I may give it a try

