Klondike Solitaire game for curses in 5k of C
nanochess.org
Klondike Solitaire game for curses in 5k of C
1–10 of 18 posts
Re: Klondike Solitaire game for curses in 5k of C
#2I thought games need GPU acceleration and React? How is this possible?
Re: Klondike Solitaire game for curses in 5k of C
#3Everyone knows that the != operator is a surplus of the C language, use only the minus operator.
It's notable that on most CPUs, the comparison instruction is equivalent to a subtraction but without writing the actual result.
Re: Klondike Solitaire game for curses in 5k of C
#4I recently wrote klondike in Rust after getting frustrated with bugs in my friend's LLM-written version. I highly recommend it as a recreational programming exercise, the first 4 hour blitz filling out the types was a blast. Later, trying to make as many invalid moves unexpressable by the given types as possible was a fun challenge. I ended up with a 232 byte struct for the board state with all values stack-allocated. The only way to make it considerably smaller would probably be to encode card permutations.
Re: Klondike Solitaire game for curses in 5k of C
#5I thought games need GPU acceleration and React? How is this possible?
Wait, he didn’t have to import 237 NPM packages?
Re: Klondike Solitaire game for curses in 5k of C
#6I put csol in https://exaequos.com:
https://github.com/nielssp/csol
Type: /usr/games/csol in the terminal (or find solitaire)
Re: Klondike Solitaire game for curses in 5k of C
#7This is seriously cool, and as a bonus reminds me to brush up on my C knowledge to finally submit an IOCCC entry...
Re: Klondike Solitaire game for curses in 5k of C
#8Everyone knows that the != operator is a surplus of the C language, use only the minus operator. It's notable that on most CPUs, the comparison instruction is equivalent to a subtraction but without writing the actual result.
Wouldn't XOR or something be much quicker than all the steps
involved in subtraction?
Re: Klondike Solitaire game for curses in 5k of C
#9Everyone knows that the != operator is a surplus of the C language, use only the minus operator. It's notable that on most CPUs, the comparison instruction is equivalent to a subtraction but without writing the actual result.
Wouldn't XOR or something be much quicker than all the steps involved in subtraction?
They’ve both had the exact same cost (both throughput and latency) on just about any ALU designed in the last several decades. There are no separate steps involved in the function of a full adder.