jdavidheiser

jdavidheiser

# Byte-compiled / optimized / DLL files
__pycache__/
*.py[cod]

# C extensions
*.so

# Distribution / packaging
.Python
env/

jdavidheiser

{
 "metadata": {
  "name": "",
  "signature": "sha256:5ad7f762e65176fc4319940032d1c0eb966cfa2b28c2b8cd558ad72236fbcdd8"
 },
 "nbformat": 3,
 "nbformat_minor": 0,
 "worksheets": [
  {
   "cells": [

jdavidheiser

{
 "metadata": {
  "name": ""
 },
 "nbformat": 3,
 "nbformat_minor": 0,
 "worksheets": [
  {
   "cells": [
    {

jdavidheiser

The following questions were posted by CodeKata 4.  Answers are provided inline.

* To what extent did the design decisions you made when writing the original programs make it easier or harder to factor out common code?

Part 1 was very direct, with things like column numbers hard coded inline.  As a first pass prototype it was fastest to do this way, rather than adding a lot of variables and creating functions.  Part 2, however, took the same basic structure of part 1 and made it more abstract, such that it was extremely easy to factor out the common ideas by the time part 3 rolled around.

* Was the way you wrote the second program influenced by writing the first?

Yes - seeing the parallels between the two problems meant it made sense to already start abstracting some things in the second program, to make the code a bit more generic and less specific.