Skip to main content

8 Tips to Improve Your Golf Game

I wasted more time golfing this week than I should have. No, not real golf... code golf. Trying to write small programs in the least number of keystrokes can be fun, challenging, and sometimes even addicting. It's not about writing pretty code or code that's easily-understandable. It's all about cramming as much code as you can into the least number of characters. While some languages golf better than others, you can still write impressively small code in your language of choice if you're familiar enough with the intricacies of its behavior. Here are 8 tips to improve your golf score when golfing with PHP:

Use short tags.
Using <? instead of <?php and using <?= instead of <?echo will both save you 3 characters.

Avoid initializing variables if possible.
Uninitialized variables assume the value 0, "", or false depending on the context in which they're referenced. $x=0; is 5 characters too much!

Know your function aliases.
A few functions in PHP are known by multiple names. join() for example is 3 characters shorter than implode().

Don't repeat yourself unnecessarily.
Consider saving the name of an oft-used function to a variable if you use the function more than once, but the function name needs to be more than 4 characters and used at least twice for any savings. $c=chop;$c($a);$c($b); is actually 4 characters more than just calling chop() twice.

Love bare literals.
PHP treats bare literals as strings, so you can save 2 characters by dropping the quotation marks.

Don't love bare literals.*
Use bit negation and binary string literals to save an extra character. is better than " ", and is definitely better than "\n".

Take advantage of side effects.
Something like $b=1;$x=80;, where $b is acting as a Boolean, might be written as $b=$x=80;. $x is assigned 80 and then assignment operator returns that value, which is then assigned to $b. Non-zero integers are considered true, so the two are semantically equivalent with a savings of 2 characters. Another example is echo$x--,"bottles of beer";, which is shorter than echo"$x bottles of beer";$x--;.

Reduce incrementally.
Write non-golf code first to make sure you fully understand the problem and your solution, then rework your code smaller and smaller in incremental steps. Don't forget to verify its correctness after each reduction.

Consider different approaches to solving the problem.
You might think to choose an array if you need a sequence of character values accessible by a numeric index, but storing them as a string might be just as effective. Then again, it may not depending on how that choice affects how you work with the data later. Don't hesitate to try both approaches to see where they lead you.

* Don't... negation... get it? Ha ha! Yeah, don't worry. I won't quit my day job.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Writing a Minimal PSR-0 Autoloader

An excellent overview of autoloading in PHP and the PSR-0 standard was written by Hari K T over at PHPMaster.com , and it's definitely worth the read. But maybe you don't like some of the bloated, heavier autoloader offerings provided by various PHP frameworks, or maybe you just like to roll your own solutions. Is it possible to roll your own minimal loader and still be compliant? First, let's look at what PSR-0 mandates, taken directly from the standards document on GitHub : A fully-qualified namespace and class must have the following structure \<Vendor Name>\(<Namespace>\)*<Class Name> Each namespace must have a top-level namespace ("Vendor Name"). Each namespace can have as many sub-namespaces as it wishes. Each namespace separator is converted to a DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR when loading from the file system. Each "_" character in the CLASS NAME is converted to a DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR . The "_" character has no special ...

What's Wrong with OOP

Proponents of Object Oriented Programming feel the paradigm yields code that is better organized, easier to understand and maintain, and reusable. They view procedural programming code as unwieldy spaghetti and embrace OO-centric design patterns as the "right way" to do things. They argue objects are easier to grasp because they model how we view the world. If the popularity of languages like Java and C# is any indication, they may be right. But after almost 20 years of OOP in the mainstream, there's still a large portion of programmers who resist it. If objects truly model the way people think of things in the real world, then why do people have a hard time understanding and working in OOP? I suspect the problem might be the focus on objects instead of actions. If I may quote from Steve Yegge's Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns : Verbs in Javaland are responsible for all the work, but as they are held in contempt by all, no Verb is ever permitted to wander about ...

Learning Prolog

I'm not quite sure exactly I was searching for, but somehow I serendipitously stumbled upon the site learnprolognow.org a few months ago. It's the home for an introductory Prolog programming course. Logic programming offers an interesting way to think about your problems; I've been doing so much procedural and object-oriented programming in the past decade that it really took effort to think at a higher level! I found the most interesting features to be definite clause grammars (DCG), and unification. Difference lists are very powerful and Prolog's DCG syntax makes it easy to work with them. Specifying a grammar such as: s(s(NP,VP)) --> np(NP,X,Y,subject), vp(VP,X,Y). np(np(DET,NBAR,PP),X,Y,_) --> det(DET,X), nbar(NBAR,X,Y), pp(PP). np(np(DET,NBAR),X,Y,_) --> det(DET,X), nbar(NBAR,X,Y). np(np(PRO),X,Y,Z) --> pro(PRO,X,Y,Z). vp(vp(V),X,Y) --> v(V,X,Y). vp(vp(V,NP),X,Y) --> v(V,X,Y), np(NP,_,_,object). nbar(nbar(JP),X,3) --> jp(JP,X). pp(pp(PREP,N...