Wow, 2 years ago, sorry! I think the same as you (Felixg2468, and also a bit with angello's premise), especially after doing my own kata and explicitly stating that I'm a newbie, asking people to kindly point out my mistakes because we've all been beginners at some point. Despite that, some people responded or reported issues in a very disrespectful manner because proclaimed themselves some kind of know-all (and far from say sorry, them are saying I could admit I am newbie when it's the thing I more repeated in everywhere in the commentaries and documentation, lmao).

On the other hand though, as I mentioned, I consider myself a newbie, but I’ve spent a lot of time thinking and searching for solutions to this kata, and I can honestly say that I’m proud of my work. To move beyond our "newbie selves," you have to put in the effort and explore different approaches to solving problems. My first solutions were lengthy and complex, but now I aim for efficiency, better readability, and even try to achieve one-liners where possible. What I’m saying is that no one should expect to improve their skills by always sticking to the same approach or taking the easy way out, right? Hope you understand what I meant, let's be empathic teaching and helping one to others with proactivity and but from the respect!

yes, exactly this.

And I agree, the kata probably wanted to avoid the hassle of this edge case. closing.

It's cool how the random tests test for tens of thousands of electrons. Can an atom actually be that powerful? Haha.

s contains 2 electrons, p has 6, while d can hold 10. 3d has a higher energy state than 4s, so 4s gets filled first, then goes 3d. Are you referring to this? I think the kata simplified this to avoid using the (s + 0.7 * l) formula. (If I correctly remember this thing from my middle school chemistry class.

for atomic numbers 19 and 20, the third shell can only contain 8 elctrons, as opposed to 18 in the description. was this intentional or accidental?

done

Approved

approved

Prolog translation

JS fork Chai assertions, Node version bump

love switch!

It'll run as long as you don't change the function name in the initial code.

Couldn't make that evil enough. A too simple generating function exists.

Cleanest solution so far

To be fair I mainly follow PEP8 because it's a good (imo) way to make my code more readable