|
This Wordle craze ...
I don't see how it differs significantly from the 'hangman' plays we had as six or seven year olds. Oh well ... we found it funny at that time. But except from the modern option of publishing our results all over the world, is there anything else distinguishing from good old hangman?
|
|
|
|
|
It's more like Mastermind[^], except that the guesses have to be words instead of any combination of letters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I deeply understand these two words now![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
If you have a good wife, why are you fooling around with a bad woman? 
Cheers,
Vikram.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 295 4/6
⬜⬜🟩⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 295 3/6
⬜⬜🟨🟨⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 good guess!
Luc Pattyn [My Articles]
The Windows 11 "taskbar" is disgusting. It should be at the left of the screen, with real icons, with text, progress, etc. They downgraded my developer PC to a bloody iPhone.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 295 6/6
🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩🟩⬜
⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Phew.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 295 4/6*
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟨🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 295 4/6
🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩⬜🟨🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
4 again:
Wordle 295 4/6
🟨🟨⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜🟨🟨
🟨🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Wordle 295 2/6
⬜⬜🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 295 3/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟨🟩⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
I'm running into a wall getting my template based library covered through testing. It's not so much runtime issues I'm concerned about, but compile warnings and even errors that may only appear when certain components of the code are used a certain way - or on a certain platform.
I ran into a platform specific compile warning in a release I had *just made* because I don't have unit testing in place for each device.
I *can* put unit testing in place for each device, but it would require a PC with enough USB ports free, running PlatformIO with every single device hooked up (about a dozen right now)
I figure it would cost me around $400-$500 to get that all set up. For a hobby project that's considerable, but worse is the space it would take up. I don't have room for another PC.
I'm not sure what to do about this: 
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
One does not test one's own code. 
|
|
|
|
|
One does when one doesn't have contributors.
One makes do with what one has.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure who sees the replies but here goes.
How about this plan?
1. Determine what all the units have in common.
2. Determine which units have the least in common.
3. Pick one or two of those units to develop, test, etc.
4. Develop a pass/fail test(s).
(not easy, but you should know success and failure)
5. Continue unit testing and code development until the code meets
the pass/fail criteria for all the chosen unit(s).
6. Select another unit and begin the process again
while assuring the tested units still handle pass/fail criteria.
not everything needs to be done in parallel, just make the
unit change-out be as smooth and consistent as possible.
This is sort of high level and not original, but got me thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't cross section the similarities and differences between the units because it amounts to differences in the standard header files and Arduino hal headers.
For example, I caught a warning because size_t is unsigned on certain platforms. I didn't catch it because only one platform - one I recently added support for, has size_t as unsigned.
Another more major issue, was in some build environments, some jokers defined "putc" as a macro, making my virtual function of the same name break the build.
Then there are differences in the actual SPI bus characteristics which are part of the Arduino HAL. That's largely opaque to me.
Now first two things can be caught purely through compiling. I don't need the devices. But if I want to test the drivers on the devices and catch that last thing i mentioned, I do need those devices hooked up.
And really there's about a $50 cost difference between hooking them up in parallel or doing one at a time manually. I'll take the former, but issue again is space, unless i start wall mounting everything. still need room for a PC. Or at least a second USB hub. I already have like 30 com ports registered on this machine though. Meh.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Many unit tests run against “mocks”, so if you could mock your hardware somehow…
Do you need the hardware? Or just need to know that the driver would emit the same sequence onto the bus?
I guess the problem is with cross compiling and the like.
One of the last projects I did, I had 100% coverage on all of the utility functions that built the data structures for the execution, but I did not bother unit testing the main flow.
Different note on the unsigned problem. If that does cause issues, then it seems like there should be some execution time checks that would alert you to these things.
|
|
|
|
|
englebart wrote: If that does cause issues, then it seems like there should be some execution time checks that would alert you to these things.
I can't afford them, and there's no such thing as a debug build on this gear, for a number of reasons.
It was a stupid mistake on my part:
size_t whoops = 10;
for(int i = 0;i<whoops;++i) {
}
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
I am thinking of a validate() function.
You never even have to call it. It just needs to be compiled for the case you documented or other edge cases.
You could omit validate() as you get closer to final product.
Once you discover an issue, you need to fix it and you need to prevent it from happening again. ( team motto)
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting, although I'm not sure if I never call it if it will compile what it uses. The g++ compiler is awfully good at avoid work it doesn't have to do.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
BTW: when I do macros in C, I preface their names like my initials JM_putc. Avoids nasty name clashes especially with other people's code.
Wow, you do have complex situation. Your software and hardware is so close together, I see why it's hard to compare and contrast. I was speaking mostly of hardware comparisons, but that line with software in your case is pretty thin. If you can do two hardware units at a time, then yes that is preferable. Still need good pass/fail criteria to keep testing consistent.
Hope you have good AC. It gets mighty hot here in summer, so 2 heavy-duty number crunching desktops and 2 laptops running at once can be a challenge. I also have very beefy UPS units for each desktop. A must. Space is an issue as well so I completely understand. You definitely need more with that many units involved.
One giant workbench with power everywhere. My dream.
|
|
|
|
|
I think whoever put that macro in intended it to stand in for the C function putc, but why it's a macro and not a function is beyond me. If they wanted to inline it they should have used a GCC attribute, after all that macro came from a compiler specific header. 
I really want to like, make whoever did that watch it break my build on travis-CI and then show them why, and then ask them to explain to me why they used a macro instead of a function as God/FSM/Kevin intended.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
