##Leap My code: here
-
Responder #1 (here) - This response went for the full if/else loop (similar to how I attacked this challenge the first time I did it in Ruby) - I think the one-line version is more concise, albeit a bit more difficult to understand at first glance.
-
Responder #2 (here) - This response was closer to mine, but still used explicit true / false returns, also - they establish the Year variable outside the isLeap function, which I don't think is ideal.
-
Responder #3 (here) - This response sets a leap variable to default to true, and only updates it as needed - interesting approach, not sure if it's good or bad - but I like the line of thinking.
-
Responder #4 (here) - This response went with one large if/else loop, with a 2nd if/else nested inside - I think the more condensed versions I examined previously are better approaches - also, the formatting isn't the best.
-
Responder #5 (here) - This response is almost exactly like mine, save for the lack of parentheses - which I have the feeling is better style, but I personally prefer the parentheses as I find it more readable.
##Hamming My code: here
-
Responder #1 (here) - This response has comments for clarity, which is kind of nice - and I like the order of their if/else loop, although I'm thinking that it may be better to exchange the first two options.
-
Responder #2 (here) - This response is hard for me to initially understand, but I do really like the way they're compairing the values of the input. The return structure threw me for a loop though.
-
Responder #3 (here) - This response is pretty neat, I like the ternary and the separation of the error message, so it can be easily changed at a later date.
-
Responder #4 (here) - This response is pretty much the same as mine, but with better variable names.
-
Responder #5 (here) - This response completely ignores the 'throw error' portion, but it does use
count ++which I think is a nice touch.
##Raindrops My code: here
-
Responder #1 (here) - This response is very close to mind, but with a better system for handling the return of the stringified number.
-
Responder #2 (here) - This response is interesting, it's clear what's happening, but the variables seem unnecessary.
-
Responder #3 (here) - This response is increasingly complicated, but it does use
Math.pow(primes, 2)which seems cool. -
Responder #4 (here) - This response is almost exactly mine, they just need to step their formatting game up.
-
Responder #5 (here) - This response is interesting, I think it's good intuition to break out the logic into separate functions - but they've made everything longer than it needs to be.