6 ms·

Come on. With the GUI?

psykotic 15y ago
Let's call it 150 or so with a simple framebuffer and keyboard interface. And that's with lines of code that are a lot less semantically dense than either of the two Tetris programs in Clojure that were posted.
- vog 15y ago
  Since people generally underestimate the amount of code a certain task needs: Can you demonstrate this? Or, can you show at least a plausible proof-of-concept?
  - psykotic 15y ago
    Here's my quick stab at it: https://gist.github.com/1210351 https://gist.github.com/1210351 I haven't tested it. I made sure it compiles and gave it a few looks over. There are likely going to be bugs but fixing them wouldn't lengthen the program. cat tetris.cpp | sed '/^\s*$/d' | wc -l 162 That's not far off from my 150 estimate including rendering and input code.
    - swannodette 15y ago
      Add the OpenGL calls and your program will not be shorter than the Clojure program in any way that is interesting.
      - psykotic 15y ago
        I am glad we are agreed it would still be shorter. It would also by my standards be simpler and more direct. But I'm not out to convince you or anyone else of that. Make up your own minds. You're defining the term "in any way that is interesting" according to your prejudices and I am defining it according to mine. Let's leave it at that. Zach's program is a lot nicer than what was originally posted. But please take a look at my program and tell me where additional abstractions would noticeably improve semantic and syntactic clarity. I can't find anything. The only thing that suggests itself is the recurring 'for (vector *v = t.v; v < t.v + 4; v++)' idiom. It's annoying to write bare-handed for loops, but I don't lose sleep over it.
      - feral 15y ago
        Its not really fair to ask the C code to include OpenGL calls -- a pretty verbose API -- to compare it against the Clojure code which has default access to the Java Swing library, and GUI widgets. Looking at the game logic in both examples, I'm convinced by psykotic. Both programs are fine, but the Clojure one doesn't seem to add any extra higher level cleanliness or abstraction, over the plain old C code. Not to say that this holds in general, as code bases grow; or to take from the original tutorial in any way; just that I agree with that for a simple game like tetris, you don't see any benefit of the higher level abstractions, as implemented here. Also, you have to give psykotic some credit for putting the time into writing a quick proof of concept to back up the opinion expressed!
    - psykotic 15y ago
      Here's another really old Tetris sample for pygame I wrote half a decade ago (174 non-blank lines): http://web.archive.org/web/20060208230531/http://www.cryptopunk.com/misc/tetris.txt http://web.archive.org/web/20060208230531/http://www.cryptop... Looking at it now, the code has some warts. It was written on an airplane ride and I just noticed I mistakingly left out S and Z tetrominoes. Oops! It's also interesting to compare the difference in block representations with my C program; I definitely think my C representation (offsets rather than masks) is cleaner. With the Python mask representation, I use a nested list transpose to take care of rotations: list(reversed(zip(*shape))). While that's a neat APL-style idiom, Python isn't really giving me any leverage over C. For example, for clearing rows in Python I use list slice lvalues. Those are useful, but here C gets the job done just as conveniently with memmove and bzero. Anyway, it could be a lot better, but it's still simpler than most of the tutorial-style game samples littering the net.

Let's call it 150 or so with a simple framebuffer and keyboard interface. And that's with lines of code that are a lot less semantically dense than either of the two Tetris programs in Clojure that were posted.

vog 15y ago
Since people generally underestimate the amount of code a certain task needs: Can you demonstrate this? Or, can you show at least a plausible proof-of-concept?
- psykotic 15y ago
  Here's my quick stab at it: https://gist.github.com/1210351 https://gist.github.com/1210351 I haven't tested it. I made sure it compiles and gave it a few looks over. There are likely going to be bugs but fixing them wouldn't lengthen the program. cat tetris.cpp | sed '/^\s*$/d' | wc -l 162 That's not far off from my 150 estimate including rendering and input code.
  - swannodette 15y ago
    Add the OpenGL calls and your program will not be shorter than the Clojure program in any way that is interesting.
    - psykotic 15y ago
      I am glad we are agreed it would still be shorter. It would also by my standards be simpler and more direct. But I'm not out to convince you or anyone else of that. Make up your own minds. You're defining the term "in any way that is interesting" according to your prejudices and I am defining it according to mine. Let's leave it at that. Zach's program is a lot nicer than what was originally posted. But please take a look at my program and tell me where additional abstractions would noticeably improve semantic and syntactic clarity. I can't find anything. The only thing that suggests itself is the recurring 'for (vector *v = t.v; v < t.v + 4; v++)' idiom. It's annoying to write bare-handed for loops, but I don't lose sleep over it.
    - feral 15y ago
      Its not really fair to ask the C code to include OpenGL calls -- a pretty verbose API -- to compare it against the Clojure code which has default access to the Java Swing library, and GUI widgets. Looking at the game logic in both examples, I'm convinced by psykotic. Both programs are fine, but the Clojure one doesn't seem to add any extra higher level cleanliness or abstraction, over the plain old C code. Not to say that this holds in general, as code bases grow; or to take from the original tutorial in any way; just that I agree with that for a simple game like tetris, you don't see any benefit of the higher level abstractions, as implemented here. Also, you have to give psykotic some credit for putting the time into writing a quick proof of concept to back up the opinion expressed!
  - psykotic 15y ago
    Here's another really old Tetris sample for pygame I wrote half a decade ago (174 non-blank lines): http://web.archive.org/web/20060208230531/http://www.cryptopunk.com/misc/tetris.txt http://web.archive.org/web/20060208230531/http://www.cryptop... Looking at it now, the code has some warts. It was written on an airplane ride and I just noticed I mistakingly left out S and Z tetrominoes. Oops! It's also interesting to compare the difference in block representations with my C program; I definitely think my C representation (offsets rather than masks) is cleaner. With the Python mask representation, I use a nested list transpose to take care of rotations: list(reversed(zip(*shape))). While that's a neat APL-style idiom, Python isn't really giving me any leverage over C. For example, for clearing rows in Python I use list slice lvalues. Those are useful, but here C gets the job done just as conveniently with memmove and bzero. Anyway, it could be a lot better, but it's still simpler than most of the tutorial-style game samples littering the net.