|
My 2 cents --
I believe that there is just as much value (perhaps more) in shortening the execution time as there is in shortening the code. In a logon script, for example, there is the time it takes to execute the script as well as the time it takes to download the script. In most cases, the execution time becomes a much greater factor, especially on slow machines.
I think we would do well to focus on execution time and memory usage in addition to code length. It is easy to measure shorter code, but it is NOT easy to measure execution time because this varies on each computer. Thus, a bit of extra emphasis on this area is worthwhile.
However, I do not necessarily believe that an "Extended Golf Score" that is a composite of multiple variables would be beneficial. To the contrary, a separate score could contain the execution time, and yet another could contain memory usage, if necessary.
Optimization for each separate metric would be beneficial and could exist separately from each of the others. I believe that the only way a composite score would be beneficial is if it was tailored to each KiXgolf competition.
For example, a competition could be to sort a given multi-dimensional array with these criteria:
1. Finish in under 100 ticks on a reference PC.
2. Be shorter than 100 keystrokes.
Seperate winners would exist in each category.
Unfortunately, it would be difficult to tell your progress if your PC differs from the reference PC.
This brings me to another point: the benefit of creating a table that shows measurements of different KiXtart operations on different PC configurations.... Essentially, this would be a benchmark test. Perhaps, a benchmarking test would be worthwhile as the next KiXgolf coding challenge, though probably a little large in scope for a competition of that nature.
Brian
| 
