20 ms·

Let's Play a Game – find bugs in popular open-source projects

202 points by Tatyanazaxarova 10y ago

cocoflunchy 10y ago
The game: http://q.viva64.com/ http://q.viva64.com/
- Odin78 10y ago
  Do similar games exist for other languages? I like the concept but my C++ is rusty at best.
  - vog 10y ago
    Yes, that would be really great. Also, many quiz items are far away from the specialities of C++. It's stuff like duplicate expressions. Or a variable being subtracted from itself. Or a variable assigned to itself.
    - mihaifm 10y ago
      I agree, this is more of an eyesight test than C++ knowledge test.
      - the_af 10y ago
        But these are real bugs from real software, which in this case happen to be taken from a corpus of C++ code. The game specifically claims it's not about knowledge of C++!
    - iheartmemcache 10y ago
      Startup idea - Generalize this in a gamified form as a vehicle to assess the caliber of programmers for potential employers. (Hiring is expensive - recruiter bonuses are 5 figures in tech, plus the opportunity cost of lost business if you don't have the capacity to handle growth).
      - AndreyKarpov 10y ago
        Interesting idea. We can give error base ( http://www.viva64.com/en/examples/ http://www.viva64.com/en/examples/ ) for C++ (V501-V762) and C# (V3001-V3105) :)
ucho 10y ago
It is easier to find a bug then to select token that is "correct". Also some of those bugs are detected even by GCC.
- unwind 10y ago
  So why are they still "live" in the originating projects, then? Honest question. Perhaps nobody reads their compiler warnings?
  - fao_ 10y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised. The amount of compile warnings I've seen when building things from source are, quite frankly, astounding
    - CorpOverreach 10y ago
      I've gotten used to seeing walls of warnings/messages when compiling things from source. It's almost a case of boy-who-cried-wolf at this point. You get lots of warnings, but it works! And they're not always due to the programmer being negligent. I've had many cases where something compiles cleanly on one box, but throws warnings on another because of a slightly different version of a compiler or library. When I compile something and it runs through the entire process with not a single warning, it's truly a "...whoa" moment.
      - ryandrake 10y ago
        Wow. When I worked as a developer, one thing I would always insist on (or push for when I was not senior enough to insist on things) was -Wall and -Werror. If your code has a warning, there is a reason for it and you should address it. Sometimes the warning is benign, so you address it with a thoughtful comment to the effect of "silence X warning - it's not a factor because Y". But at least address them! Reasons to be so anal on warnings: 1. Broken windows theory. A code base full of warnings signals that nobody cares about anything. People will get better about finding and caring about the big things when they are forced to also care about the little things. 2. When your project has a "wall of warnings" there are real bugs hiding in there. I guarantee it and would bet money on it. Here's your opportunity to fix them and you don't even need QA to point them out. Your compiler is literally telling you. 3. When things compile on one box but not another, that's a big red flag that you have something platform-specific or library version-specific that WILL bite you some time later. unsigned-signed and sizeof(int) mismatches are good examples of this. The whole "it compiles and works therefore it's done" mentality is some serious "second-year programming class" level shit, but it's everywhere. Good projects, where people care and have disciplined attitudes, discourage it.
joebergeron 10y ago
Interesting, but some of the questions are somewhat shallow or ambiguous. For example, referencing a variable x0 where y0 should have been used, etc. Although I do have to say, it's certainly kind of alarming, if not amusing, to see trivial bugs that slipped through the cracks in very many massively popular pieces of software.
ViktorasM 10y ago
so frustrating when the answer is obvious but where to click is not. e.g. in "if a.length != a.length" the "correct" token is the first "a". Should really be anything in the whole expression.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- kartD 10y ago
  Completely agree, I got three wrong, but because I clicked the wrong spot, I only got 3 right, it's pretty frustrating. The test is also pretty easy. I only know C and some Java and I figured most of the problems. The standout important questions to me were the memset and free ones.
- __david__ 10y ago
  Yeah I fell victim to that, too. Also having a timer counting down caused me to freeze up. I got about half the questions right immediately, and half after the time had ticked down so that my mind could relax and pay attention. I think I legitimately only got 2 wrong. And one of them I could argue that I found a different bug than the one they were looking for.
Sylos 10y ago
Do I get extra points for finding an exploit in their game? Just disable JavaScript and reload the page, which will halt the countdown and display the solution. Then, when you've read what you need to know, re-enable JavaScript, reload the page, again, and then just click the place where the error is. Then click on the "Next Question"-button, disable JavaScript, again, and so on...
- junke 10y ago
  .right-fragment { color: green; font-weight: bold; background-color: white; font-size: 30px; }
- yoo1I 10y ago
  > Do I get extra points for finding an exploit in their game? The highest "badge" that you can earn by completing the 15 questions is <trollface> "won by tricking the system". So: yes.
kbart 10y ago
The hardest part for me was to read an ugly formatted code with no highlights.
- Superleroy 10y ago
  Agree, badly formatted and thus hard to read. And when you find the error you don't know where to click as it only highlights a part of the error.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- chatmasta 10y ago
  That's a luxury! Try finding a bug in an obfuscated binary, without access to the source code or even header files, that implements anti-debugger techniques to crash or behave differently upon first detection of a debugger.
  - lorenzhs 10y ago
    What does that have to do with static analysis of C++ source code? Of course that's difficult, but the quiz is also purposefully made more difficult than it would be in real life.
    - caf 10y ago
      On the other hand the test is significantly easier than it would be in real life, because you know that there's a bug somewhere in the few lines it's showing you.
      - svens_ 10y ago
        You're right. The timer on the page put me under more stress than I'd like to admit. Maybe this is quite a good simulation of code review reality though, where you try cover lots of code in a small amount of time.
- 10y ago
Kenji 10y ago
Wow, I found that surprisingly difficult. I noticed that when I read code, I optimize my attention for bugs _I_ make, which are often of a different nature than the bugs that this static analyzer finds. Clearly, I have to work on my bug awareness.
- zbyszek 10y ago
  I imagine that the conclusion Mr Karpov would have you reach is that you should buy PVS Studio instead.
  - mlvljr 10y ago
    Or at least try it (the download is free) :)
mlvljr 10y ago
This "game" would have no end to it, if played for real :)
garaetjjte 10y ago
Some of these errors will be propably detected by compiler with -Wall and -Wextra.
- wepple 10y ago
  that's what I thought. > 50% of the questions I was presented with were misprint errors which likely would've been caught by unused variable warnings.
delinka 10y ago
Many of the bugs the quiz wants me to find would be pointed out by my IDE (but I'm not taking the quiz in my IDE...) Also, lots of this code is terrible. Simply adhering to a reasonable style could highlight or eliminate bugs. For example, "variable > other_value - 1"; let's get that "- 1" outta there and use >= instead. Anyway, although I suggest these would be helped by a modern IDE and some style guides, I'd concede that since this is open source code, it's probably older than modern IDEs...
- thomasahle 10y ago
  The whole point of this is that static analysis can find bugs that people have missed. If your IDE finds most of these, it just means that its static analysis is mostly as good as the Intel one.
  - AndreyKarpov 10y ago
    Small comment. PVS-Studio is not Intel static analysis tool. It is OOO "Program Verification Systems": http://www.viva64.com/en/about/ http://www.viva64.com/en/about/
- the_af 10y ago
  "This code is terrible" is not a good argument. Yes, it's buggy code. However, we know most programmers write bugs. This is an argument in favor of static analysis (and yes, your IDE is a form of that).
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  > Many of the bugs the quiz wants me to find would be pointed out by my IDE No no, you are supposed to pretend like you might be in a situation where this is no IDE! Tech company interviews in a nutshell
- pjmlp 10y ago
  I guess you never looked at typical enterprise code. Also even on 2016, many live on the AT&T world where IDEs are not welcome.
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Scary stuff here. My second question was a fairly obvious bug in OpenSSL.
bjourne 10y ago
I got 13 points (not counting as incorrect those where I knew the answer, but the system wouldn't accept the token I clicked on) and I don't think it was that hard. My objection is that if you run static analysis on code like this: static int rr_cmp(uchar *a,uchar *b) { if (a[0] != b[0]) return (int) a[0] - (int) b[0]; if (a[1] != b[1]) return (int) a[1] - (int) b[1]; if (a[2] != b[2]) return (int) a[2] - (int) b[2]; if (a[3] != b[3]) return (int) a[3] - (int) b[3]; if (a[4] != b[4]) return (int) a[4] - (int) b[4]; if (a[5] != b[5]) return (int) a[1] - (int) b[5]; if (a[6] != b[6]) return (int) a[6] - (int) b[6]; return (int) a[7] - (int) b[7]; } You are doing it wrong. You first need to figure out how to write code in a more readable fashion and not allow ugly things like the above in the codebase.
- thomasahle 10y ago
  This looks like legacy code from before compilers had good loop unrolling. If people have large code bases like these to maintain, they'll probably be happy to find the bugs now, and worry about rewriting it all later.
- esmi 10y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if this code is actually auto generated from a macro, higher level script, or something. I do driver work and this kind of thing is very common in that space.
  - junke 10y ago
    Except that code generators don't make typos (most of the time? what about neural networks?).
bluetomcat 10y ago
These are mostly mistypings caused by carelessness which occasionally play oddly with C/C++ syntax, not the kind of logical bugs which plague most software.
- the_af 10y ago
  I don't understand. These are real bugs from actual software. Not sure if the test is randomized; I got stuff like a != a and multiplications by (y - y). Also C++-specific stuff like improper use of sizeof and references. How are these not the kind of logical bugs that plague most software?
  - bluetomcat 10y ago
    They are from actual software but that doesn't make them less trivial – assignment instead of equality, unbalanced parentheses which invoke the comma operator, mistyped names of variables in repetitive expressions which do not stand out due to the idiotic indentation, not knowing that arrays decay to pointers when passed to functions. Those things can indeed cause a lot of harm but they are far less frequent in codebases not written by monkeys, compared to issues like undefined behaviour due to misunderstanding the language semantics, integer overflow, not checking whether a call has returned an error, etc.
    - the_af 10y ago
      Again, I don't understand the argument. Actual software is full of "trivial" bugs. That they are trivial doesn't seem to stop programmers from writing them! I don't know about you, but in my experience I find plenty of inexperienced programmers (and oddly, even some supposedly experienced ones) who write poorly indented software with repetitive expressions. Sometimes the verbosity of the programming language -- or the lack of a good static checker -- even encourages this. Saying "don't write code with trivial errors" is almost like saying "don't write bugs". We all know how well that works. We must deal with the fact trivial bugs occur, and that they occur often; anything else is like hiding your head in the sand. This is an argument in favor of static code analyzers.
tudorw 10y ago
got 3 and proud of it, signed an [ex]php dev ;) (well, 1, and 2 where my spidey sense tingled but I clicked the wrong place)
ryanjodonnell 10y ago
It's like Pokemon Go, except you never leave the house and search through code instead of the real world. Perfect.
tener 10y ago
It is good to be reminded of the horrors of C++. I'm happy to be working with C# and have Resharper enabled. It easily catches all of the bugs in this test.
- AndreyKarpov 10y ago
  C#... huh :) Accord.Net - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0410/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0410/ Microsoft WPF Examples - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0407/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0407/ Xamarin.Forms - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0400/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0400/ Lucene.Net - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0381/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0381/ Xenko Game Engine - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0379/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0379/ Space Engineers - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0376/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0376/ WPF examples by the Infragistics Company - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0375/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0375/ CNTK tool kit - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0372/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0372/ Sony C#/.NET component - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0371/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0371/ IronPython and IronRuby - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0367/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0367/ MonoDevelop - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0366/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0366/ CoreFX - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0365/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0365/ Roslyn - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0363/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0363/
  - tener 10y ago
    Cool, didn't notice they are doing C# as well. It would be very interesting to try it. I wonder what the costs are though - the quotes are hidden from their site. Still, in reality, knowing that your code has a bug is just one part of the story. Having huge legacy code base usually means you've got to fix the bugs as you go about your business implementing features/fixing other bugs. You cannot simply spend a year fixing bugs no-one actually cares about (because software was working well enough before). So in this drive-by scenario IDE-integrated tool is much more useful than some offline report-generating tool. You see a warning live in your editor - you fix the issue - you move on. Very low effort and effective in the long run.
    - AndreyKarpov 10y ago
xyproto 10y ago
The only way to win is not to play.
Retr0spectrum 10y ago
10/15. I guess that's not bad for someone who never used C++ before. This test gives the user a slightly unfair advantage, because you know where to look. If I was given the whole of the source file for any of these examples, I would probably never have found any bugs.
alblue 10y ago
From the intro to the game: "Test does not support mobile devices. It is very easy to miss with finger. We are working on new version of tests with better mobile devices support, new problems to solve etc. However, it is not implemented yet." Since you have to select the bug in the code with the mouse, it's unusable on touchscreen mobile devices.

cocoflunchy 10y ago

The game: http://q.viva64.com/ http://q.viva64.com/

Odin78 10y ago
Do similar games exist for other languages? I like the concept but my C++ is rusty at best.
- vog 10y ago
  Yes, that would be really great. Also, many quiz items are far away from the specialities of C++. It's stuff like duplicate expressions. Or a variable being subtracted from itself. Or a variable assigned to itself.
  - mihaifm 10y ago
    I agree, this is more of an eyesight test than C++ knowledge test.
    - the_af 10y ago
      But these are real bugs from real software, which in this case happen to be taken from a corpus of C++ code. The game specifically claims it's not about knowledge of C++!
  - iheartmemcache 10y ago
    Startup idea - Generalize this in a gamified form as a vehicle to assess the caliber of programmers for potential employers. (Hiring is expensive - recruiter bonuses are 5 figures in tech, plus the opportunity cost of lost business if you don't have the capacity to handle growth).
    - AndreyKarpov 10y ago
      Interesting idea. We can give error base ( http://www.viva64.com/en/examples/ http://www.viva64.com/en/examples/ ) for C++ (V501-V762) and C# (V3001-V3105) :)

ucho 10y ago

It is easier to find a bug then to select token that is "correct". Also some of those bugs are detected even by GCC.

unwind 10y ago
So why are they still "live" in the originating projects, then? Honest question. Perhaps nobody reads their compiler warnings?
- fao_ 10y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised. The amount of compile warnings I've seen when building things from source are, quite frankly, astounding
  - CorpOverreach 10y ago
    I've gotten used to seeing walls of warnings/messages when compiling things from source. It's almost a case of boy-who-cried-wolf at this point. You get lots of warnings, but it works! And they're not always due to the programmer being negligent. I've had many cases where something compiles cleanly on one box, but throws warnings on another because of a slightly different version of a compiler or library. When I compile something and it runs through the entire process with not a single warning, it's truly a "...whoa" moment.
    - ryandrake 10y ago
      Wow. When I worked as a developer, one thing I would always insist on (or push for when I was not senior enough to insist on things) was -Wall and -Werror. If your code has a warning, there is a reason for it and you should address it. Sometimes the warning is benign, so you address it with a thoughtful comment to the effect of "silence X warning - it's not a factor because Y". But at least address them! Reasons to be so anal on warnings: 1. Broken windows theory. A code base full of warnings signals that nobody cares about anything. People will get better about finding and caring about the big things when they are forced to also care about the little things. 2. When your project has a "wall of warnings" there are real bugs hiding in there. I guarantee it and would bet money on it. Here's your opportunity to fix them and you don't even need QA to point them out. Your compiler is literally telling you. 3. When things compile on one box but not another, that's a big red flag that you have something platform-specific or library version-specific that WILL bite you some time later. unsigned-signed and sizeof(int) mismatches are good examples of this. The whole "it compiles and works therefore it's done" mentality is some serious "second-year programming class" level shit, but it's everywhere. Good projects, where people care and have disciplined attitudes, discourage it.

joebergeron 10y ago

Interesting, but some of the questions are somewhat shallow or ambiguous. For example, referencing a variable x0 where y0 should have been used, etc. Although I do have to say, it's certainly kind of alarming, if not amusing, to see trivial bugs that slipped through the cracks in very many massively popular pieces of software.

ViktorasM 10y ago

so frustrating when the answer is obvious but where to click is not. e.g. in "if a.length != a.length" the "correct" token is the first "a". Should really be anything in the whole expression.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kartD 10y ago
Completely agree, I got three wrong, but because I clicked the wrong spot, I only got 3 right, it's pretty frustrating. The test is also pretty easy. I only know C and some Java and I figured most of the problems. The standout important questions to me were the memset and free ones.
__david__ 10y ago
Yeah I fell victim to that, too. Also having a timer counting down caused me to freeze up. I got about half the questions right immediately, and half after the time had ticked down so that my mind could relax and pay attention. I think I legitimately only got 2 wrong. And one of them I could argue that I found a different bug than the one they were looking for.

Sylos 10y ago

Do I get extra points for finding an exploit in their game? Just disable JavaScript and reload the page, which will halt the countdown and display the solution. Then, when you've read what you need to know, re-enable JavaScript, reload the page, again, and then just click the place where the error is. Then click on the "Next Question"-button, disable JavaScript, again, and so on...

junke 10y ago
.right-fragment { color: green; font-weight: bold; background-color: white; font-size: 30px; }
yoo1I 10y ago
> Do I get extra points for finding an exploit in their game? The highest "badge" that you can earn by completing the 15 questions is <trollface> "won by tricking the system". So: yes.

kbart 10y ago

The hardest part for me was to read an ugly formatted code with no highlights.

Superleroy 10y ago
Agree, badly formatted and thus hard to read. And when you find the error you don't know where to click as it only highlights a part of the error.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
chatmasta 10y ago
That's a luxury! Try finding a bug in an obfuscated binary, without access to the source code or even header files, that implements anti-debugger techniques to crash or behave differently upon first detection of a debugger.
- lorenzhs 10y ago
  What does that have to do with static analysis of C++ source code? Of course that's difficult, but the quiz is also purposefully made more difficult than it would be in real life.
  - caf 10y ago
    On the other hand the test is significantly easier than it would be in real life, because you know that there's a bug somewhere in the few lines it's showing you.
    - svens_ 10y ago
      You're right. The timer on the page put me under more stress than I'd like to admit. Maybe this is quite a good simulation of code review reality though, where you try cover lots of code in a small amount of time.
10y ago

Kenji 10y ago

Wow, I found that surprisingly difficult. I noticed that when I read code, I optimize my attention for bugs _I_ make, which are often of a different nature than the bugs that this static analyzer finds. Clearly, I have to work on my bug awareness.

zbyszek 10y ago
I imagine that the conclusion Mr Karpov would have you reach is that you should buy PVS Studio instead.
- mlvljr 10y ago
  Or at least try it (the download is free) :)

mlvljr 10y ago

This "game" would have no end to it, if played for real :)

garaetjjte 10y ago

Some of these errors will be propably detected by compiler with -Wall and -Wextra.

wepple 10y ago
that's what I thought. > 50% of the questions I was presented with were misprint errors which likely would've been caught by unused variable warnings.

delinka 10y ago

Many of the bugs the quiz wants me to find would be pointed out by my IDE (but I'm not taking the quiz in my IDE...) Also, lots of this code is terrible. Simply adhering to a reasonable style could highlight or eliminate bugs. For example, "variable > other_value - 1"; let's get that "- 1" outta there and use >= instead. Anyway, although I suggest these would be helped by a modern IDE and some style guides, I'd concede that since this is open source code, it's probably older than modern IDEs...

thomasahle 10y ago
The whole point of this is that static analysis can find bugs that people have missed. If your IDE finds most of these, it just means that its static analysis is mostly as good as the Intel one.
- AndreyKarpov 10y ago
  Small comment. PVS-Studio is not Intel static analysis tool. It is OOO "Program Verification Systems": http://www.viva64.com/en/about/ http://www.viva64.com/en/about/
the_af 10y ago
"This code is terrible" is not a good argument. Yes, it's buggy code. However, we know most programmers write bugs. This is an argument in favor of static analysis (and yes, your IDE is a form of that).
cloudjacker 10y ago
> Many of the bugs the quiz wants me to find would be pointed out by my IDE No no, you are supposed to pretend like you might be in a situation where this is no IDE! Tech company interviews in a nutshell
pjmlp 10y ago
I guess you never looked at typical enterprise code. Also even on 2016, many live on the AT&T world where IDEs are not welcome.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

Scary stuff here. My second question was a fairly obvious bug in OpenSSL.

bjourne 10y ago

I got 13 points (not counting as incorrect those where I knew the answer, but the system wouldn't accept the token I clicked on) and I don't think it was that hard. My objection is that if you run static analysis on code like this: static int rr_cmp(uchar *a,uchar *b) { if (a[0] != b[0]) return (int) a[0] - (int) b[0]; if (a[1] != b[1]) return (int) a[1] - (int) b[1]; if (a[2] != b[2]) return (int) a[2] - (int) b[2]; if (a[3] != b[3]) return (int) a[3] - (int) b[3]; if (a[4] != b[4]) return (int) a[4] - (int) b[4]; if (a[5] != b[5]) return (int) a[1] - (int) b[5]; if (a[6] != b[6]) return (int) a[6] - (int) b[6]; return (int) a[7] - (int) b[7]; } You are doing it wrong. You first need to figure out how to write code in a more readable fashion and not allow ugly things like the above in the codebase.

thomasahle 10y ago
This looks like legacy code from before compilers had good loop unrolling. If people have large code bases like these to maintain, they'll probably be happy to find the bugs now, and worry about rewriting it all later.
esmi 10y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if this code is actually auto generated from a macro, higher level script, or something. I do driver work and this kind of thing is very common in that space.
- junke 10y ago
  Except that code generators don't make typos (most of the time? what about neural networks?).

bluetomcat 10y ago

These are mostly mistypings caused by carelessness which occasionally play oddly with C/C++ syntax, not the kind of logical bugs which plague most software.

the_af 10y ago
I don't understand. These are real bugs from actual software. Not sure if the test is randomized; I got stuff like a != a and multiplications by (y - y). Also C++-specific stuff like improper use of sizeof and references. How are these not the kind of logical bugs that plague most software?
- bluetomcat 10y ago
  They are from actual software but that doesn't make them less trivial – assignment instead of equality, unbalanced parentheses which invoke the comma operator, mistyped names of variables in repetitive expressions which do not stand out due to the idiotic indentation, not knowing that arrays decay to pointers when passed to functions. Those things can indeed cause a lot of harm but they are far less frequent in codebases not written by monkeys, compared to issues like undefined behaviour due to misunderstanding the language semantics, integer overflow, not checking whether a call has returned an error, etc.
  - the_af 10y ago
    Again, I don't understand the argument. Actual software is full of "trivial" bugs. That they are trivial doesn't seem to stop programmers from writing them! I don't know about you, but in my experience I find plenty of inexperienced programmers (and oddly, even some supposedly experienced ones) who write poorly indented software with repetitive expressions. Sometimes the verbosity of the programming language -- or the lack of a good static checker -- even encourages this. Saying "don't write code with trivial errors" is almost like saying "don't write bugs". We all know how well that works. We must deal with the fact trivial bugs occur, and that they occur often; anything else is like hiding your head in the sand. This is an argument in favor of static code analyzers.

tudorw 10y ago

got 3 and proud of it, signed an [ex]php dev ;) (well, 1, and 2 where my spidey sense tingled but I clicked the wrong place)

ryanjodonnell 10y ago

It's like Pokemon Go, except you never leave the house and search through code instead of the real world. Perfect.

tener 10y ago

It is good to be reminded of the horrors of C++. I'm happy to be working with C# and have Resharper enabled. It easily catches all of the bugs in this test.

AndreyKarpov 10y ago
C#... huh :) Accord.Net - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0410/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0410/ Microsoft WPF Examples - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0407/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0407/ Xamarin.Forms - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0400/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0400/ Lucene.Net - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0381/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0381/ Xenko Game Engine - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0379/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0379/ Space Engineers - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0376/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0376/ WPF examples by the Infragistics Company - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0375/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0375/ CNTK tool kit - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0372/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0372/ Sony C#/.NET component - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0371/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0371/ IronPython and IronRuby - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0367/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0367/ MonoDevelop - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0366/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0366/ CoreFX - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0365/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0365/ Roslyn - http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0363/ http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0363/
- tener 10y ago
  Cool, didn't notice they are doing C# as well. It would be very interesting to try it. I wonder what the costs are though - the quotes are hidden from their site. Still, in reality, knowing that your code has a bug is just one part of the story. Having huge legacy code base usually means you've got to fix the bugs as you go about your business implementing features/fixing other bugs. You cannot simply spend a year fixing bugs no-one actually cares about (because software was working well enough before). So in this drive-by scenario IDE-integrated tool is much more useful than some offline report-generating tool. You see a warning live in your editor - you fix the issue - you move on. Very low effort and effective in the long run.
  - AndreyKarpov 10y ago

xyproto 10y ago

The only way to win is not to play.

Retr0spectrum 10y ago

10/15. I guess that's not bad for someone who never used C++ before. This test gives the user a slightly unfair advantage, because you know where to look. If I was given the whole of the source file for any of these examples, I would probably never have found any bugs.

alblue 10y ago

From the intro to the game: "Test does not support mobile devices. It is very easy to miss with finger. We are working on new version of tests with better mobile devices support, new problems to solve etc. However, it is not implemented yet." Since you have to select the bug in the code with the mouse, it's unusable on touchscreen mobile devices.