# challenges: a way to test one's programming skills

i really liked puzzles and challenges as a kid. i participated in programming competitions and some easier math ones as well. the problem with competitions was that whenever i lost, i felt quite sad. especially if the competition had a form of direct elimination. e.g. if i was not in the top n then i did not pass to the next round. when i was eliminated then i felt dumb, i was not part of the "elite", i did not have the "smarts" to enter the next round. it was a very discouraging feeling. however winning such competitions was an awesome feeling. i felt proud of myself and even got prizes to boot.

interestingly, i had similar feelings about school exams. there too i felt the dread and stress of failure. it might have been even worse a bit because even though the bar was lower, the stakes were higher: if i fail, bad things will happen to me. e.g. i get exposed to even more exams unvoluntarily. i tried to ignore grades but i did felt pressure for good grades. so bad grades also made me sad.

another frustrating part of these exercises is their randomness factor. i never knew what to expect. especially bad were the ones where the examiner gave me a random subject and then i had to talk just about that subject. what fascinates me is that in such cases i always managed to get a subject i happened to know. as my studies progressed, i even started to rely on this more and more and learn less and less. this was very risky, yet my luck persisted.

now that school is over, i am no longer subject to these experiences. i miss them a bit though. it is not the dread and stress i miss. it is not even the sense of achievement i miss. if that would be the case then just competing and succeeding in online programming competitions would give me the same dopamine shot i am missing. yet they do not. i tried doing them but i simply did not have the same motivation. i did not find them that much interesting. i do not think i just "grew up". i sort of feel the same as i was a kid. it is just my environment and my interaction with it that completely changed. however if i would get back into the same environment, i would probably enjoy the same things as i enjoyed as a kid.

my childhood competitions and exams were in an environment of friends and family. these people knew whenever i attended these exams and competitions. they always asked about the results. when i got good results, i felt good about myself because i understood that it meant something for these people. they might have felt proud of me. i never bragged though. i just let people be naturally curious (where were you yesterday?) and ask questions (oh really? how did you fare?). i never liked to talk about myself so i tried to dismiss questions but after enough nagging or some other ways (e.g. teacher announcing everyone's results) people found out. i had this "thing" where i preferred that people find out stuff about me from other ways than me talking about it. maybe this is a form of signal that said person was so interested in me that they looked up or asked information about me, remembered it and then asked me about it. a sort of honest, non-fakeable flattery. it felt good. i guess i am a narcissist. but i am digressing.

so achievements of exams and competitions felt good because i felt that i impressed nearby friends and family. it was important that i impressed people i knew. impressing strangers is boring. i mean just compare the following two statements: "a random korean guy won a starcraft competition" vs "your friend won the bowling nationals". which one is more exciting? the latter excites me more because then i want my friend to talk about it. the former i just simply do not care about. now that i grew up, it is very hard to impress people, i do not usually get such feedback. if i had some friends with whom i would continue to do programming competitions, i think i would find it fun. but i am not a person with many friends. it is not that people run away from me, it is more that i do not even try acquire or meet people. anyways, digressing again.

even though this game is over for me, it does not mean i cannot create an environment where people can acquire such experiences. however if i am going to do this, i want to remove the elements of dread, stress, randomness, lost opportunities and so on. at some point in my life (maybe when i am retired) i would like to try creating a particular "challenge". let me describe the rules and then i will explain why i like the idea:

• the challenge is to write a piece of software (solving a random collection of problems, e.g. given graph find shortest path, string manipulation, etc, stuff that i can easily verify).
• the challenge is static, never changes.
• the challenge is online, one can practice for it any way they wish.
• the taker must solve the challenge in barebones c programming language. the taker cannot even use the standard library (i provide a read and write function).
• the taker can attempt the challenge once every 3 months and it is free of charge.
• the takers must come to my house and use my restricted environment to take the challenge while i observe them so that they do not cheat.
• before attempting the challenge, the taker must send a fully correct solution to me. i need this to avoid situations where people come to me without any hopes to finish the challenge.
• at least one week before the first attempt, the taker must come to my house and do an exercise run. this ensures that the test takers are aware of the challenge's environment and gives me a way to become friends before i take on my adversial position as the challenge's proctor.
• the taker cannot use any helper material to complete the challenge other than the crappy computer i provide. not even a handwritten post-it note. i do provide a pen and paper for writing notes from scratch.
• the taker has 4 hours to complete the challenge. once they finish, i test their code and tell them if they passed or not. no bathroom breaks, drinking or anything allowed during those 4 hours (unless medical reasons).
• upon successfully completing the challenge, the taker's name will appear in the challenge's hall of fame. there would be also prices for the completers although age limited (e.g. prices only for <= 16 years old). giving chocolate or something to middle aged people for completing a coding challenge seems weird.

i have not fully thought out the challenge but i think those rules achieve most of the features i want the challenge to have. here are my reasons why i would like this challenge as a taker:

• i know what the challenge asks. i know if i am prepared for the challenge or not. i do not need to stress about "what are they going to ask me?".
• the challenge's result does not depend on other people. if i pass, i am on the hall of fame regardless of others.
• the programming environment is very simple, very equalizing. since i cannot use the standard library, i know that i do not need to stress about memorizing the parameter order of qsort. i just need to learn qsort itself. maybe it is harder but i feel better if i know qsort's algorithm rather than just the argument order.
• because i can retry in short period of time, the failure is not a big deal. there are no limits on the amount of retries. i can keep trying until i succeed. and whether i succeed or not, depends only on my willpower, i do not lose anything even if it takes me 5 years to succeed.
• since there is a cooldown period between attempts, i have a chance to really think through my next attempt rather than just brute forcing through the challenge.
• since the challenge occurs in a very controlled environment, i know that every member of the hall of fame went through the same process as i did. i know there are no cheaters among them, and i know that others also know that i cannot be a cheater.
• the challenge is geographically limited so it is not something anybody can do. the hall of fame will not be filled with random people all around the world that i cannot possibly know. in fact since only close people can do it (especially thanks to the silly 1 week exercise run), it is highly likely that the people on the hall of the fame are people i can befriend or just go and visit. then i can ask for their advice. doing this in the real world rather than through anonymous online discussions is much more satisfying. even if i communicate via email, just knowing that the other side is near me makes things more satisfying.
• since the challenge does not allow any helping tools or materials, all i can fall back to is myself. there is no greater equalizer than stripping ourselves from our tools and resources. this way i know that all the hall of fame members all only used only their minds. i do not need to stress whether i have the best books with me or not, or whether my notes contain everything or not. it is just me and the challenge.
• 4 hours is limit i need to work with. it is something to which i have to adapt my bodily functions. i feel i need to urinate in a higher frequency, well, i have all the more motivation to work faster.
• once i finish the challenge, i appear on the hall of the fame. if the challenge is hard enough so that only a few people are on it, then randomly meeting my fellow hall of famers at some random future point is a great bonding opportunity. i now immediately have a common topic i can rant about and ask the other person's experience of the challenge. it is also a nice feeling if my non-programming peers find it and then start asking about it.
• there is one perverse incentive with the age limited prices. maybe the price is a bike that the kids do not really need since they sit at home all day long. even if i cannot get the price anymore directly, i could still strike a deal with kids that i will prepare them for the challenge in exchange they give up the price (or a portion of the price) for me. this way i would have an incentive to train the next generation for the challenge.

so that would be my idea. the challenge itself is not very practical. but i do not think everything in life must be strictly practical. it is a game. no need to play if it does not sound interesting.

ideally when i retire, i will do so in a small city and could run such a challenge from my home mostly for the nearby kids. maybe i could present multiple challenges with varying difficulties and then advertise the challenge in the local school. it would be completely optional, i would not expect too many kids to try. however i can play with the prizes. if nobody attempts, i can just keep raising the prize until a few kids get so obsessed with it that they will start training for the challenge. it is an easy way to get some people motivated to do something i want. there is not much point to this other than getting onto the hall of fame. however if they manage to get there, they might get interested in other, more mature competitions and this might kickstart their interest in computer science.

since i think i would be pretty comfortable with such challenges, i wonder if similar conditions could apply to school exams. i could split school exams into two categories: the mandatory exams and the extracurricular exams. both types would be binary: pass or fail. there is no grading. however there would be no punishment for failing. they could just retry 3 months later. the mandatory exams would be super basic: it is just to confirm that they can read, write, count, know the basics of ethics (do not hurt others), know some basic stuff about everyday life (monetary skills like avoiding credit or the concept of interest rates), some basic life skills (cooking an egg). the extracurricular exams would be about history, algebra, literature, programming, sewing, cooking, woodworking and others (each subject would have multiple exams with varying difficulties). kids could do the exams any time they want, in any order (as long as they take at least 1 each month for instance). the nice thing is that then the kids can direct their knowledge intake as they wish. if they do not have preference, others can suggest them exams to take. the learning part of the studies is left to the kids to figure out. sure, they can attend classes but if they feel they can go faster than the rest, they can just take the exams sooner and not bother with the classes. and just to make sure kids have an incentive for collaborating, they could have random study groups where all members have to pass a specific exam. the study group members now have to branch out subjects outside their interest. if a member is not interested in the subject at all, the other study group members must somehow work with the disinterested kid to convince and teach the kid about the subject for the greater good. they have to do so because the rule would be to not allow the study members take more exams until they get everyone on their group to pass the random exam. anyways, i am just rambling random ideas. the point is, rather than forcing a very strict curriculum and punishing failure, i would much prefer to give more choice for kids to pursue education in the areas they like and at the pace they want, have easier and less stressful exams (they are kids afterall) and avoid punishment for failing exams but rather teach to keep trying, regardless of failures.

published on 2018-01-23

to the frontpage