Talk:Rock-paper-scissors

From Rosetta Code

Ready to come out of draft? --Michael Mol 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I like it. I haven't seen any questions. I think people understand RPS pretty well. +1 for promotion. --Mwn3d 16:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
RPS is pretty easy to understand. I was more concerned about the AI player. I have been thinking about Rock-Paper-Lizard-Spock. Particularly, having the same codebase be able to handle both forms of the game with minimal redundant code. That might be doable as an Extra Credit goal. --Michael Mol 16:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
That should be (above)   rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock.   -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Using proper "English" for the winner   (paper disproves Spock,   paper covers rock, etc.)   while not being problematic, made my program entry a bit ... bulky. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Implementing   rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock   would expand programs into two directions:   more abstraction, or more bulk.   Abstraction is good, but harder to read and/or understand. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)