6
\$\begingroup\$

The existing factorial challenge has some restrictions on the domain, performance, and banning built-ins. I opened a meta question about it a week ago, and as per the meta consensus, we decided to post a new vanilla factorial challenge. The sandboxed challenge is here.

Now the problem is: Should we close the old factorial challenge as a dupe of the new one?

Relevant existing meta discussion: 1, 2, 3

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I agree with your statement in the sandbox that It is not a dupe because the solutions to the existing challenge are not likely to be competitive here, and solutions to this one are not likely to be valid on the other. You should post that as an answer here so it can ve voted on \$\endgroup\$ – Luis Mendo Aug 21 at 6:16
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @LuisMendo Done. \$\endgroup\$ – Bubbler Aug 21 at 6:19
11
\$\begingroup\$

No, leave both challenges open

As Luis Mendo requested in the comment, here is a copy of my statement for voting.

I believe it is not a dupe because the solutions to the existing challenge are not likely to be competitive here, and solutions to this one are not likely to be valid on the other.

Using Mego's post as the guideline, in my opinion:

  • Is the "meat" of the challenges the same? Not really. The restriction imposed on the old challenge is so hard for languages without infinite-precision integer support, making the "restriction" the core part of the challenge, rather than the factorial-calculating part.

  • Could answers from one be posted to the other, with trivial modifications at most, and be competitive? No, based on the quote above.

  • Which challenge is better? This part is irrelevant since it is about which to leave open assuming they are dupes of each other, and I don't think they are dupes.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, we made similar decisions previously

This challenge is in a very similar situation and it is closed as duplicate.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ You raise a valid point. To me, it illustrates the subjectivity that I referred to in the Sandbox comments. Deciding whether or not two questions are dupes isn’t black and white: the outcome depends on (or ought to depend on) the specifics of the two challenges. The Kolakoski case certainly shows that old challenges have been closed as dupes in the past, but a more thorough analysis of the similarities/differences between that case and the present one is called for. You should address why you think the two factorial challenges, specifically, are so similar that one ought to be closed. \$\endgroup\$ – Dingus Aug 22 at 6:01
-3
\$\begingroup\$

...But what purpose would the old one serve, then?

The only reason we use the old challenge is, it is a factorial challenge.

Now that we have the new challenge, what does the old one do?

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I disagree. If we have a vanilla factorial and a restricted factorial, the purpose of the restricted one changes to "implement fast and accurate multi-digit multiplication so that up to 125! is supported". If you write a Brainfuck answer that computes the factorial using multi-digit multiplication, it best suits to the restricted one; it's not likely to be competitive in the vanilla one. \$\endgroup\$ – Bubbler Aug 21 at 8:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .