Talk:Four bit adder: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→C++ code size: Separate page) |
(→C++ code size: Not appropriate.) |
||
| Line 254: | Line 254: | ||
::: Look, it's not my word: the C example called the inputs "pins" and the assignment statement "V", what was I supposed to infer? The desc does use the word "simulate", btw. I don't really care if you simulate a voltage or water pressure, the matter is task description does seem to want some reasonable simulation despite wasting a lot of effort talking about how one should use bit mask as input/output values. The C code along with some translated code did the task without a remotely systematic way of simulating a circuit (can you verify input pins are all with valid values? how much work is it change the code to do a 128 bit adder instead of 4?), it's ironic to call this a simulation. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 23:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
::: Look, it's not my word: the C example called the inputs "pins" and the assignment statement "V", what was I supposed to infer? The desc does use the word "simulate", btw. I don't really care if you simulate a voltage or water pressure, the matter is task description does seem to want some reasonable simulation despite wasting a lot of effort talking about how one should use bit mask as input/output values. The C code along with some translated code did the task without a remotely systematic way of simulating a circuit (can you verify input pins are all with valid values? how much work is it change the code to do a 128 bit adder instead of 4?), it's ironic to call this a simulation. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 23:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::Ok, and the task does say "chip" which would also imply electronics. But I would also draw a distinction between other languages in general (some of which have implementations where the 128 bit adder is trivial) and the C implementation in specific (which I have not studied). Still... if the task meant for physics to be simulated, instead of logic, I imagine it would have said something about the way physics was supposed to be simulated? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 01:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC) |
::::Ok, and the task does say "chip" which would also imply electronics. But I would also draw a distinction between other languages in general (some of which have implementations where the 128 bit adder is trivial) and the C implementation in specific (which I have not studied). Still... if the task meant for physics to be simulated, instead of logic, I imagine it would have said something about the way physics was supposed to be simulated? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 01:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
::I suspect the C++ (not the C) code, rather than being idiomatic, is "enterprise-y" the kind of code you get when people refuse to say no or the people in charge think "I might just need this" or "if I put this in, I can't be fired for leaving it out". There are several examples already existing that could be used to show what is expected from an answer. RC rarely requires any example of that size. It is just as unreasonable to have the C++ example as it would be to add a code golf solution. Simulations are supposed to reflect an ''appropriate'' abstraction of what is simulated. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 10:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Could someone move the C++ code to a separate sub-page at least? That huge wad of code is over 16 pages long where the others are less than two pages! It is clearly [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/anomalous anomalous] in size. |
Could someone move the C++ code to a separate sub-page at least? That huge wad of code is over 16 pages long where the others are less than two pages! It is clearly [http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/anomalous anomalous] in size. |
||