41–50 of 99 posts
Surprisingly many failures of reading comprehension in the implementations here: https://programming-idioms.org/idiom/184/tomorrow I’ve always found it interesting to consider the simplest possible spec you could give 100 programmers and receive no bugs in return.
A program
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is one of the most confusing pieces of C code I have seen lately. And it fails on an empty string: I would expect it to set b to 1 for an empty string, but it sets it to 0. Of course that could easily be fixed by setting b to 1 at the top. Also, code like this should always be put inside a function that returns a value, not just written inline. Making it a function allows simpler and more understandable code too…
You do realize it returns 1 for an empty string right? I mean it doesn't have any digits in it... What about adding a check of str[0] == 0 -> return 0 Also, giving char str[] will make it char* str. Which can be null. This may cause reading a random memory location (possibly segfault or use-after-free) edit: I get the comments but empty string still contains no digits. Given the regex would be ^[0-9]+ (+ instead of *…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention that proper idiom for this task would be: int n = strspn(s,"0123456789"); BOOL b = (s[n] == 0);
That is nice and simple, but it makes ten comparisons for each character in s, where only two are needed. Of course it would be a good approach if the set of characters you're testing against is not contiguous, unlike 0..9.
Surprisingly many failures of reading comprehension in the implementations here: https://programming-idioms.org/idiom/184/tomorrow I’ve always found it interesting to consider the simplest possible spec you could give 100 programmers and receive no bugs in return.
The core of the problem was noted already: Obviously most people can't read.
That's especially "funny" when thinking about all the fuss that is made about teaching children programming in school. They should start with teaching them reading.
I don't even mean this snarky. The state of affairs is actually depressing and I would welcome it very much if more people around would be able to read, understanding what's written. Would make a lot of things easier for everybody I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is one of the most confusing pieces of C code I have seen lately. And it fails on an empty string: I would expect it to set b to 1 for an empty string, but it sets it to 0. Of course that could easily be fixed by setting b to 1 at the top. Also, code like this should always be put inside a function that returns a value, not just written inline. Making it a function allows simpler and more understandable code too…
You do realize it returns 1 for an empty string right? I mean it doesn't have any digits in it... What about adding a check of str[0] == 0 -> return 0 Also, giving char str[] will make it char* str. Which can be null. This may cause reading a random memory location (possibly segfault or use-after-free) edit: I get the comments but empty string still contains no digits. Given the regex would be ^[0-9]+ (+ instead of *…
It is synonymous with “none of the characters is a non-digit”, which is true for the empty string.
Surprisingly many failures of reading comprehension in the implementations here: https://programming-idioms.org/idiom/184/tomorrow I’ve always found it interesting to consider the simplest possible spec you could give 100 programmers and receive no bugs in return.
What do you call a spec that any programmer can understand and correctly describes the problem and its desired outcome exactly? A program
* Not all programmers can understand all programs
* Most programs don't describe the problem exactly
* Almost no program describes the desired outcome exactly
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you call a spec that any programmer can understand and correctly describes the problem and its desired outcome exactly? A program
That description doesn't apply for most programs though. * Not all programmers can understand all programs * Most programs don't describe the problem exactly * Almost no program describes the desired outcome exactly
(Also debatable, for example if correct operation of the program depends on some property of its environment that can't always be relied upon.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you call a spec that any programmer can understand and correctly describes the problem and its desired outcome exactly? A program
That description doesn't apply for most programs though. * Not all programmers can understand all programs * Most programs don't describe the problem exactly * Almost no program describes the desired outcome exactly