• Sales: (866) 518-YARD

Programming Contest Closed!

By Leah Silber | July 21st, 2009 at 6:07PM

It’s 6pm, which means we’ve just closed the doors and accepted the final entries for the Engine Yard Programming Contest. It’s been a wild ride, and it sounds like a lot of folks had fun coming up with crafty and creative ways to get their entries. We had over 200 submissions, if you want to calculate your odds ;)

We’ll be announcing the winners soon, but in the meantime, we’re quite interested in the code you wrote… Folks have been tweeting and blogging about their tactics and machine power, and we want to learn more!

If you think you came up with a creative solution, email a link to your code to giveaways@engineyard.com. Include a little bit about yourself and your programming background, some info on your contest thought process, and if you’re not too shy, a headshot. We’ll feature the most creative solutions in a follow up blog post, and if you’re selected for that post, send you a nifty Engine Yard swag pack.

Thanks to everyone who participated — it’s been great!

Share this post:
  • email
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
Popularity: 1% |
Rate this post: 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars
Loading ... Loading ...

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

5 Responses to “Programming Contest Closed!”

  1. CodingCrypto CodingCrypto says:

    Do you have an official overview page? I liked http://jazzychad.com/engineyard/ a lot.

  2. MarkusQ MarkusQ says:

    Tried to narrow the task from both ends (fixed 512 bit prefix block and most of tail block fixed, exploiting patterns, etc.) to reduce computation per test etc. then compile with gcc -O3, but realized too late that I shoulda CUDA.

    – MarkusQ

  3. Fryguy9 Fryguy9 says:

    Started out with a genetic algorithm for fun, and found this cool gem called ai4r, but of course the randomness of the hashing algorithm didn't let it narrow down the value properly. So, switched to random guessing, but only got down to 43.

  4. I simply wrote a ruby script direct in irb (1.8), then I try to run the same code with ruby1.9 and the performance improved a little bit. I only got down to 41, but I think for a quick ruby script running in an eeePC is really good… Next time I'll use a more appropriated language, maybe a I'll make circuit hardware is always the quickest!