On 12/13/05, James Edward Gray II <james / grayproductions.net> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2005, at 6:33 AM, David Balmain wrote:
>
> > Errr.... Since it went out to the world I just want to be clear on one
> > thing. The point I was trying to make about not being included in the
> > quiz summary was that my solution isn't very Rubyish and is more
> > interesting from and algorithms perspective than a coding perspective.
> > I hope that's clear. :-\
>
> No worries, you didn't offend me.  ;)
>
> There's no real science about how I choose a solution to discuss.  I
> read them all and when one inspires me, I talk about it.  Very
> systematic, as you can see.  ;)
>
> I will tell you that I notice I'm getting pickier and pickier about
> code length though.  I'm certainly not looking to encourage golf
> (that's pretty much the opposite of what Ruby Quiz stands for) and
> I'm not trying to slack off on summary work, but I truly believe
> correct Ruby involves "Writing less code."
>
> So a good tip for catching my eye is not using five lines when two
> will do.  Sprinkle in a few clever Ruby style idioms and you've got a
> better than average chance of getting singled out.

Cool. And this is the way it should be. That's the reason I read your
summary every week. I use different resources for finding out the
latest and greatest algorithms. Anyway, I can't wait for the book. 3
months to go. :-)

> Just FYI.
>
> James Edward Gray II
>
>
>