https://code.google.com/p/chrome-toolbox/

I hope you are happy.

Do have a look at the source code. Oh, and try turning up your speakers and typing in the Konami code...

A few suggestions, then:

1. Don't use i as the name of the parameter. A lot of people use that as the name of loop variables, and it means breaking habit or wasting time changing the name.

2. For test 3, try some multiple-extension files to make sure they did it right (some.file.multiple.extensions, should return "extensions")

3. For test 5, it says "integers". Try some non-integers during testing, to make sure that it's only checking for integers.

4. For test 5, it says "arrays". Try some objects to make sure they're not being lazy and using typeof thing === "object"

Anyway, thanks for making this. I love it!

30% figuring out the answer, 20% not having my editor shortcuts available, 50% figuring out how to check if a value is a certain type.

Am I the only one that gives their functions preconditions that the input is good? To me, throwing up when you're passed a non-number to a sum method is correct behavior.

    [] instanceof Array; // returns true

    typeof(["an array", "contains multiple things"]) == typeof({but_this_one: "is an object"})

I've confirmed that I can, in fact, code under pressure, but to what degree?

Other than that, fantastically fun game. My only regret is that it's a one-time game by nature, since obviously the second time around you'd simply be remembering what you did the first time instead of creating it.

https://twitter.com/search?q=I%20completed%20%22You%20Can't%...

- usvsthem is white-listed so Javascript runs, which is all that's strictly required.

- White-listed sites are still blocked from running plugins including <AUDIO>. It's straightforward to override this on a plugin-by-plugin basis but I typically don't want to.

11:14. The 14 seconds were enough for the first two questions, but I find strings and array handling tough when switching languages.

  n===+n && n===(n|0)

Edit: Read the initial requirements of the puzzle, it says sum all the integers, not all the numbers. People using (typeof i[x] == 'number') just got lucky because the test-cases didn't exercise the full requirements of the puzzle ;)

  // i will be an array, containing integers and/or arrays like itself.
  // Sum all the integers you find, anywhere in the nest of arrays.

  sum += i[p];

  recursion(i[p]);

pretty simple no?

I dread to think what obscure code I've left behind.

You should learn a little more about JS before you call this simple.

    n % 1 == 0

It didn't actually require differentiating between integers and floats, just numbers and other types.

Normally javascript function inputs aren't this messy.

    > typeof 5.4
      "number"

I mentally skipped over Justin_Time's solution, figuring I would just hit a float error case because it was going to be a stickler about integers.

I finished this in 4 minutes.

Edit: looks like HN doesn't like asterisks

return input.split(".")[1] || "";

Absolutely! Being under the gun led me, at one point, to have a "longest string in array" method with a statement like

  if (i[z].length < qq) { ... }

file called .htaccess is not filename "" and extension "htaccess" with a "." separating the two. .htaccess is a unix style dotfile. its whole name is ".htaccess" and it has no file extension.

return i.indexOf('.') > -1 ? i.substring(i.indexOf('.')+1) : false;

Seemed to pass all test cases

    return i.reduce(function(prev, next) {
        if (typeof(next) == "object" && next.length) { return arraySum(next) + prev; }
        if (typeof(next) == "number") { return next + prev; }
        return prev;
    }, 0);

The bonus upside is that these paradigms also make parallelism quite simple, should it later be necessary.

      function arraySum(i) {
	var total = 0
	for(var x=0; x < i.length; x++) {
		if(typeof i[x] == 'object') {
			 arraySum(i[x])
		} else if(typeof i[x] == 'number') {
			total += i[x]
		}
	}
	return total
     }

That was also my final answer. However, I was going for speed and not elegance, after looking at other people's responses with prototypes and all.

function arraySum(i) { var total = 0 for(var x=0; x < i.length; x++) { if(typeof i[x] == 'object') { total += arraySum(i[x]) } else if(typeof i[x] == 'number') { total += i[x] } } return total }

or am i missing something?

     > typeof ["a", "b"]

    "object"

I used i.forEach for questions involving arrays, instead of for-loops. Saves me time.

its like returning error codes in C for errors

Spent nearly the entire time on #3 because I was trying to use String.replace to work and failing. Ended up using .split instead, which passed thanks to poor test coverage (just like at work!).

For the "is this actually a string?" check, for example, I started looking for the existence of the match method on the object, which of course would have failed if they passed some random object with match defined so I cheated a bit. I'd like to see the full breadth of test options people took out there.

I wanna see one of these in Python.

Blew through the first 4 but spent half my time on the last one because I don't have Javascript type checking memorized.

The "kill screen" song is stuck in my head now.