Relatório de Utilização dos Editores de Texto e Máquinas das Sedes
Table of Contents
SCORE | RUNS | TASKS | CLARIFICATIONS | STATISTICS
1. Report on Editors Usage in the Chilean Programming Tournament
The Chilean Programming Tournament featured 48 teams. The choice of code editors was notably varied, with a clear dominance by a single editor. Below, we analyze editor usage in general and among the top-performing teams.
1.1. Overall Editor Usage
| Editor | Teams using |
|---|---|
| geany | 0 |
| intellij-idea | 1 |
| codeblocks | 2 |
| intellij-clion | 2 |
| emacs | 3 |
| intellij-pycharm | 3 |
| vim | 3 |
| gedit | 5 |
| visual-studio-code | 45 |
Visual Studio Code was overwhelmingly the most popular editor, adopted by 45 teams, some potentially using it in combination with other editors. Gedit was the second most popular with 5 teams, followed by vim, emacs, intellij-pycharm, and intellij-clion with similar shares. Editors such as geany were not used.
1.2. Editor Usage Among the Top 12 Teams (Q1)
| Editor | Top 12 Teams using |
|---|---|
| codeblocks | 0 |
| geany | 0 |
| intellij-idea | 0 |
| intellij-pycharm | 0 |
| emacs | 1 |
| intellij-clion | 1 |
| gedit | 2 |
| vim | 2 |
| visual-studio-code | 10 |
Within the top quartile (12 teams), the preference for Visual Studio Code is even more pronounced, with 10 teams using it. Alternative editors such as emacs, intellij-clion, gedit, and vim are present but minimally used, and some editors used in the general population (e.g., codeblocks, geany, intellij-idea, intellij-pycharm) are not represented.
1.3. Conclusion
The data demonstrates that Visual Studio Code is the de facto standard among participants, both in general and particularly among high-performing teams. While some diversity of editor choice persists, alternative editors represent a small minority. This may suggest a convergence in tool preference aligned with current development trends and possibly training or institutional recommendations.
2. Computer Hardware and Memory Allocation per Site
This summary details the processor models and RAM available to teams at each competition site in the Chilean Programming Tournament.
| Site (City) | Teams Served |
|---|---|
| Santiago (UTFSM) | 23 |
| Talca (UCM) | 5 |
| Valdivia (UACH) | 4 |
| Coquimbo/La Serena | 5 |
| Concepción (UdeC) | 10 |
| Viña del Mar (UVM) | 1 |
| Site (City) | Qty | Processor Model | RAM per Machine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Santiago (UTFSM) | 23 | i5-10500 @ 3.10GHz | 16 GB |
| Coquimbo/La Serena | 5 | Ryzen 7 5700U with Radeon Graphics | 16 GB |
| Concepción (UdeC) | 6 | i5-4440S @ 2.80GHz | 8 GB |
| 4 | i5-7400T @ 2.40GHz | 8 GB | |
| Talca (UCM) | 5 | i7-6700 @ 3.40GHz | 8 GB |
| Valdivia (UACH) | 1 | i3-3220 @ 3.30GHz | 8 GB |
| 3 | i7-9700F @ 3.00GHz | 8 GB | |
| Viña del Mar (UVM) | 1 | i5-8500 @ 3.00GHz | 8 GB |
| Site (City) | Teams Served | Teams with 16 GB RAM | Teams with 8 GB RAM |
|---|---|---|---|
| Santiago (UTFSM) | 23 | 23 | 0 |
| Coquimbo/La Serena | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| Concepción (UdeC) | 10 | 0 | 10 |
| Talca (UCM) | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| Valdivia (UACH) | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| Viña del Mar (UVM) | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Totals
- Teams with 16 GB RAM: 28
- Teams with 8 GB RAM: 20
- Total teams: 48
2.1. Discussion
- Santiago (UTFSM): All 23 teams used i5-10500 CPUs with 16 GB RAM, ensuring both top technical quality and uniformity.
- Coquimbo/La Serena: All 5 teams used Ryzen 7 5700U machines with 16 GB RAM (multi-core, modern laptops/desktops).
- Concepción (UdeC): 6 teams used i5-4440S and 4 teams used i5-7400T, all with 8 GB RAM—mid-generation CPUs.
- Talca (UCM): All 5 teams used i7-6700 CPUs with 8 GB RAM.
- Valdivia (UACH): 3 teams used i7-9700F, 1 team used an older i3-3220, all with 8 GB RAM.
- Viña del Mar (UVM): 1 team used i5-8500 with 8 GB RAM.
- No team had less than 8 GB or more than 16 GB RAM.
2.2. Summary
- 28 of 48 teams (58%) competed on 16 GB RAM.
- 20 of 48 teams (42%) competed on 8 GB RAM.
- The most equitable and best-equipped venues were Santiago (UTFSM) and Coquimbo/La Serena (all teams with 16 GB RAM and modern CPUs).
- All other teams competed with 8 GB RAM. CPU quality was modern but varied across sites and teams.