Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Meta

Comments on Codidact Fractional Byte Consensus

Parent

Codidact Fractional Byte Consensus

+1
−0

Over on the Code Golf StackExchange site, there is a meta consensus that answers can be scored in fractional bytes if there exists such an encoding method.

So, to quote the linked consensus question:

For languages with fractional byte code pages, such as half-byte code pages or huffman coding, should functions be allowed to be submitted without padding to a whole number of bytes?

This came up when I went to write this answer and then realised "hang on there's no consensus about fracbytes here yet"

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+2
−0

I'm going to reiterate and build off ideas I laid out on this post on PPCG.

First let's point out that at current the leader board does not support fractional scores. In this answer I am going to assume this is unchanged. That may prove to be false, in fact I think it is likely a false assumption, but I think it's a useful assumption for the sake of this answer.

What does it mean to allow?

The question asks if fractional bytes should be allowed, but I want to dig into what that means.

Answerers are allowed to pursue other goals than just byte count. They are allowed for example to try golfing a problem while at the same time implementing the optimal algorithm. People are allowed to try golfing using restricted methods. People are allowed to golf in Java.

If people pursue a lower fractional byte score is anyone going to stop them? It seems like disallowing fractional bytes can only mean forcing users to round their score up to the nearest whole in the title of the post. This means users are still perfectly capable of noting their fractional score in the answer. And if one answer is 4.3 bytes and another is 4.97 bytes then everyone is going to know that the 4.3 byte answer is the one that's really shorter, even though the "official" score says they're the same.

Allowing fractional bytes isn't that much different. The leader board doesn't interpret fractional bytes correctly so comparison of fractional bytes still has to be done by individuals. It seems at most you could say that the "disallow" solution standardizes the way scores are presented to the machine for ranking, while allowing leaves anything of that nature unofficial.

What should we do?

With respect to the above, I think we should try to update the leaderboard to support fractional bytes. If people can and will score their answers in terms of fractional bytes regardless, then updating the leaderboard to reflect the reality of how people are scoring is probably for the best. This is a descriptive approach to the leaderboard.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

So you'd welcome fractions if the leaderboard did? (8 comments)
So you'd welcome fractions if the leaderboard did?
trichoplax‭ wrote over 1 year ago

Have I understand correctly that your only objection to fractional scores being official is the lack of leaderboard support?

If so, bear in mind that the leaderboard (like the rest of Codidact) is open source. If the community supports the idea of fractional scores, anyone can update the code to reflect this.

I recommend expressing what you'd like to see, either here or in a different post if you want to keep them separate, and if the community agrees then we can make it happen.

("We" being anyone who wants to work on it.)

WheatWizard‭ wrote over 1 year ago · edited over 1 year ago

Maybe I am no expressing myself most clearly. I am saying that the in effect disalllowing and allowing fractional bytes are not tangibly different. I assume the leaderboard doesn't change because it illustrates this point most expressly.

trichoplax‭ wrote over 1 year ago

I think I see. The main body of your answer is to say "It doesn't matter", and the final section is to say "the official score should be the ceiling of the fractional byte count".

This does not appear to be what the leaderboard currently does. See the example answer linked from this Meta question which has a byte count of 5.5 and appears in the leaderboard with a bytecount of 5 rather than 6.

So it looks like we need to fix the leaderboard either way (either to show the ceiling of the bytecount, or the fractional bytecount).

WheatWizard‭ wrote over 1 year ago

In the last section I'm suggesting that if the leaderboard is not changed, we include a dummy count so the leaderboard scores it predictably. I'll try to reword it.

WheatWizard‭ wrote over 1 year ago

Actually the leaderboard currently floors the fractional score so there's no use in making a dummy score. I've changed my suggestion to "update the leaderboard to support how people are scoring".

lyxal‭ wrote over 1 year ago

The leaderboard does not floor - it takes the number after the decimal place and counts that as the score. The 5.5 case happened to be a coincidence. Source

WheatWizard‭ wrote over 1 year ago

Ok, I should have seen that. I'm going to suggest adding a rounded up dummy score for the time being, and then to fix the leaderboard. I'll edit my answer in a bit.

trichoplax‭ wrote over 1 year ago

Might be better to keep the scores as they are for now and prioritise fixing the leaderboard, rather than build up a backlog of answers that will need to be edited later.