You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Nornagest comments on An attempt at a short no-prerequisite test for programming inclination - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: ShardPhoenix 29 June 2013 11:36PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (68)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Nornagest 30 June 2013 12:32:14AM *  3 points [-]

I got this right, but ended up having to invent notation to keep track of the indirection in the last segment. I think it's likely a decent test of whether you're likely to quickly pick up an intuitive head for pointer math and a very basic variable name-value distinction, but it won't capture other forms of abstraction that're necessary for programming: loops, types, conditional branching, Boolean logic. You could probably get away with dropping conditionals (I get the impression they're fairly intuitive), but I've had trouble teaching the others in the past.

Has a bit of an old-school feel to it, too; I'd expect the results to correlate better with talent for C than they would with, say, Python.

Comment author: J_Taylor 30 June 2013 01:02:44AM 0 points [-]

I got this right, but ended up having to invent notation to keep track of the indirection in the last segment.

This is also the case for myself. I would be very impressed by anyone who did not have to do this.

Comment author: James_Blair 30 June 2013 01:44:28AM 12 points [-]

The trick is to evaluate right to left.

Comment author: AlexSchell 30 June 2013 01:28:58PM *  3 points [-]

I opted for doing this and also checking the answer once, as opposed to using notation.

Comment author: Alsadius 30 June 2013 08:28:31AM 3 points [-]

I didn't. Instead, I just kept taking the least-condition-laden part of the instruction, replacing it with a number, and repeating the operation on the newly simplified sentence.

Comment author: palladias 30 June 2013 07:02:12PM 0 points [-]

Ditto.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 30 June 2013 01:11:12AM 0 points [-]

I didn't invent notation, but I did write

number whose number [redacted] box whose number = [redacted]

so that I could keep track as I worked from bottom to top.