wow im not the only one who abbreviates arr to r lmao

@Jeki00 god knows xd try to optimize tho

oopsie my test cases contradict, text shows 30 but code allows 35 xd

?

yeah you can to that too, didn't think of it

I was able to hardcode it, as tests only go up to 20. Maybe make that 1000.

angry upvote

Maybe add the three strings in the solution setup. JS example:

function goodVsEvil (good,evil) {
  // return "Battle Result: Evil eradicates all trace of Good";
  // return "Battle Result: No victor on this battle field";
  // return "Battle Result: Good triumphs over Evil";
}

nah i still generally understood what was going on when looking at the logs

I did figure out to put console.logs inside my code. Actually worked better than if it told me the input.

"Expected: -44, instead got: -28"

Mh, yes. Very sufficient data, that really helps me understand what cases my code fails on. (Javascript.)

Another kata omega-ruined by performance tests.

@jesimielpogi018 you need an O(n) solution, one that, when given a 100-element array, will do 100 iterations, and not 10000 (O(n^2)). So you can't bruteforce with nested for-loops.

wait am i having the same O(n^2) issue when using ints.slice(0,i) in my JS solution?