Some solutions rely on the falsiness of the first element to fail the limit.

Either the description should specify non-negative numbers, or there should be a test

Test.assertEquals(smallEnough([-3,-2,-1,0], -1), false);

This would invalidate the top voted solution, and make only a single solution possible ( typical golf kata .. :[ ).

The Ruby version doesn't mention anything about not modifying the original string, but requires that the original string not be modified in order to pass. Even if not modifying input is considered a best practice, it should be specified if it's a requirement.

I smell a series!

OCaml translation

Python reference solution is wrong: considers _ to be a letter.

***************
* Translation *
* Dart        *
***************

Translation Dart

in random python tests the drone is always at the end of the list, the shuffle function can solve this problem

the dart strikes back
Translation Dart

I think this kata should be in 8 kyu, at least for me it was easier than "For Twins: 1. Types".

Java:

• Expecting a Person[] type for 1st parameter, but other languages except a Dictionary / Hashmap ...

Description should also made language-agnostic regarding this and unify the data type for input parameters...

No random tests in Java

Java:

• Actual and expected are swapped

Lua translation!