Why Board Games are better than Electronic Games



  • WTF number 1: Try to show your family how fun programming in C is by making a board game of it:

    A board game that is based on C

     

    WTF number 2: Try and make money by selling it as a game - see site above

    WTF number 3: promote it's ability to teach programming to see the game to schools

    http://www.c-jump.com/pageteachersguide.html

    WTF number 4: write an executive report on it's merits in the classroom- <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3">Independent study on teaching tertiary level students to program with c-jump
    board game.
    </font>

    http://www.c-jump.com/C-Jump_Report.pdf



  • This would make much more sense if they had used vb5



  • TRWTF is that there are goto statements on that board. I wouldn't want C students to start doing spaghetti code!



  • I love the no-op statements like "x + 2;", especially when "The game is based on the code of a real computer program!"



  • @lolwtf said:

    I love the no-op statements like "x + 2;", especially when "The game is based on the code of a real computer program!"
     

    TFTFY



  • Poor choice of pun. They could have at least gone with "ASCII-Jump".



  •  TRWTF is the supposed program has "int main()" as a function. Doesn't anybody use void anymore?



  •  I had a million dollar idea like this once, I call it the "jump to conclusions mat"

     

    Jump To Conclusions Mat



  • int main() is correct. Programs should return integer status codes - 0 for success or other numbers for errors. That's what shells, and their users, expect.



  • Well int main () is the standard, people should use it, it's not like it hurts anything.



  • @m0ffx said:

    int main() is correct. Programs should return integer status codes - 0 for success or other numbers for errors. That's what shells, and their users, expect.

    I think he referred to

    [code]int main(void)[/code]

    rather than the ugly

    [code]void main(void)[/code]

    that my college teachers insisted on using.



  • @m0ffx said:

    int main() is correct. Programs should return integer status codes - 0 for success or other numbers for errors. That's what shells, and their users, expect.

     

     

    What do embedded systems expect ?



  • @Helix said:

    @m0ffx said:

    int main() is correct. Programs should return integer status codes - 0 for success or other numbers for errors. That's what shells, and their users, expect.

    What do embedded systems expect ?

    Assuming your question isn't rhetorical, the cstartup code calls main() as a standard C function. Should it actually return, the return value is available for subsequent code. Granted, most embedded main() functions never return, but should you have the requirement, the hooks are there. This can be useful for Flash programming on certain architectures, amongst other things.



  • @SenTree said:

    @Helix said:

    @m0ffx said:

    int main() is correct. Programs should return integer status codes - 0 for success or other numbers for errors. That's what shells, and their users, expect.

    What do embedded systems expect ?

    Assuming your question isn't rhetorical, the cstartup code calls main() as a standard C function. Should it actually return, the return value is available for subsequent code. Granted, most embedded main() functions never return, but should you have the requirement, the hooks are there. This can be useful for Flash programming on certain architectures, amongst other things.

    Point of order.  You're both conflating "embedded systems" with "freestanding implementations".

    Plenty of embedded systems run a full OS (linux, for example) and have a hosted implementation of the C runtime.



  • You can assume anything you like.

    I would comment that MOST embedded sytems with an OS use an RTOS not a GPOS, but anyhow there are plenty that use Linux.  

    How does running an OS mean you do not have to have a return value?

     



  • @DaveK said:

    Point of order.  You're both conflating "embedded systems" with "freestanding implementations".

    Plenty of embedded systems run a full OS (linux, for example) and have a hosted implementation of the C runtime.

    Point taken. I was referring to my own little corner of deeply embedded freestanding implementations (think '8-bit', think 'sensors') where we don't have any OS, so I'm always running on bare metal.

    Happy new year to all, whenever midnight reaches you. I'm off to celebrate.



  • @Helix said:

    You can assume anything you like.

    I'm not assuming anything.  It was you who appeared to assume that embedded == freestanding.

    @Helix said:

    I would comment that MOST embedded sytems with an OS use an RTOS not a GPOS, but anyhow there are plenty that use Linux.  

    Well, that's pretty irrelevant as an objection then.

    @Helix said:

    How does running an OS mean you do not have to have a return value?

    I can't really respond to that, since it doesn't remotely resemble anything I said.

    Just so we know we're both on the same page, are you familiar with the meaning of the terms "free-standing implementation" and "hosted implementation" from the C standard?



  • @DaveK said:

    .............

    @Helix said:

    I would comment that MOST embedded sytems with an OS use an RTOS not a GPOS, but anyhow there are plenty that use Linux.  

    Well, that's pretty irrelevant as an objection then.

    ......

     

    Hello DaveK,

    I was actually agreeing with you, and actually some of my comments were to other users.  Just because you like to split every post made by users and troll every sentence does not mean we do.  Why do you assume every sentence is an argument?  I think you do this on purpose.

    Mods,

    Please remove DaveK posts and consider a ban to clean up here.



  • Helix, it's my opinion that you're overreacting. You're not being trolled and certainly nobody will be banned.

    Proceed!

     

    - Your friendly neigborhood mod



  • @Helix said:

    @DaveK said:

    .............

    @Helix said:

    I would comment that MOST embedded sytems with an OS use an RTOS not a GPOS, but anyhow there are plenty that use Linux.  

    Well, that's pretty irrelevant as an objection then.

    ......

     

    Hello DaveK,

    I was actually agreeing with you, and actually some of my comments were to other users.  Just because you like to split every post made by users and troll every sentence does not mean we do.  Why do you assume every sentence is an argument?  I think you do this on purpose.

    You began your post with the statement "You can assume anything you like".  That reads to me like you are arguing that I've made some kind of false or unjustified assumption.  You ended it with "How does running an OS mean you do not have to have a return value?".  That looks like a disagreement.  It's perfectly possible I've misread your post, but since it's only three fairly cryptic lines and you didn't give any indication that only some of it was addressed to me and some to other people, nor which bits would be addressed to who, I don't see how I was supposed to make anything else of it.

    @Helix said:
    Mods,

    Please remove DaveK posts and consider a ban to clean up here.

    Oh, grow up.  My language was polite and uncontroversial.  You're being hypersensitive.



  •  This place was a lot better before the trolls



  • @Helix said:

     This place was a lot better before the trolls

     

    Dude, now you look just like one. More than just one person told you that you are overreacting and yet you throw your "subtle" accusation again with that condenscending attitude. You need to learn how to take in being wrong once in a while, because that's what trolls think they are right after all evidence has been put before them and you hate those, don't you?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.