Beautiful!

There are plenty of puzzle kata that do not explicitly tell you what to do. I wouldn't really call this a puzzle kata, but it could be seen in the same vein. Just looking at the sample tests should tell you all you really need to know about the kata anyway. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I solved it because I'm experienced with prototypical inheritance in JavaScript. If I were not, it would have been a solid block for me. Instructions that fail to actually state what needs to be done should be corrected or the Kata should be removed.

Eh, it's fine. You just have to think about it for more than a second. I see you solved it, so the instructions must have been good enough.

It is not best practice to format a function so confusingly, but I think it's a nice application of JavaScript's native reduce method

This kata has no useful directions. Can we please get rid of it? Surely, there are more sensible variations readily available.

This is a fun solution

I think I'm in love <3

Thx! Good old days of fun programming.

I'm digging your check4uniqueness helper fxn!

There's no such thing as self-documenting code.

Come down from your ivory tower. Code can be elegant, but a single function is not itself art.

A function, or even a library of functions, is a tool. Comments and documentation are how we explain to future users how best to implement whatever tool we've created.

Great comments <3

so MoOse and moose would be treated the same way

Test for "moose" expects false. Test for "moOse" expects false. Relevant assertions in tests are:

assert.strictEqual( isIsogram("moose"), false );
assert.strictEqual( isIsogram("moOse"), false, "same chars may not be same case" );

Doesn't this mean they both behave the same way? What is different about them?

The tests expects false, I don't know what you're complaining about, the test is fine, you're wrong.

assert.equal( isIsogram("moOse"), false, "same chars may not be same case" );

That is the test, if it was case-sensitive as you claim, it would expect true because o and O would be considered different letters, but it isn't.

Please reread what I wrote and re-check your tests. As many other users have pointed out, that test fails for them, as well. Case insensitization would mean that the case wouod be ignored, so MoOse and moose would be treated the same way. That isn't happening as it should be; it's not working as intended. Check your work.