Helpful. Thank you!

Yes you're supposed to do that ; it's best practice :) See the fork D:)

huh, you dont have to specify var, let, etc... on variables, I like it

Thanks.

very helpful, thanks

I think there’s absolutely no need to depend on such micro-benchmarks. The real bottlenecks are somewhere else. However, each of these conversion methods has its own caveats:

• v.toString() — works well, unless v.toString is not a function, that is when v is null or undefined or when .toString was deliberately changed or deleted (very rare case)
• '' + v — works with nulls and undefineds too, but might give some unexpected results for such objects as:

v = {
  valueOf: function () { return 5 },
  toString: function () { return 'foo' }
}

in which case '' + v would return '5' (very rare case)

• String(v) — works every time, correctly calls .toString method, if an object has one, and works for nulls and undefineds
• '' + [v] or [v].join() — same as String(v) (unless you modified Array.prototype), with exception of nulls and undefineds becoming empty strings, which can be quite usefull sometimes

In the real world, it’s fine to use any of these methods, with caution while using v.toString() when v could be null and undefined. Choose, what’s most convenient/legible/usefull for you and your team. Performance differences are highly negligible.

does this run any slower than the return ''+num solution or the num.toString() method?

I guess he does indeed

Nice little test. One bit was a little confusing.

0 means the proposed digit is correct
1 means the proposed digit is lower than the correct one
-1 means the proposed digit is higher than the correct one

Took me a few minutes and a number of attempts before I figured out I was reading it wrong. You migh be able to write a bit more clearly perhaps.

But I enjoyed doing this one. Well done!

I absolutely agree with this. I think this would make for much more interesting algorithms, and a more realworld type scenario.

I'd say the Test.expect. Seeing the '\n' appear should provide enough of a clue given system constraints. I'll go ahead and switch my vote. Thanks for your awesome work!

I'm seeing the newline now, that's great! However, I'm not seeing the erroneous answer any longer. If you could add that back in, I'd be willing to mark you as good to go out the door.

Great work on this.

I agree the kata is good to go as it stands. However, I think the author should review the solutions to ensure that the solutions most of us are coming up with, just to make sure they're within the author's intent.