search

exercism / c

Exercism exercises in C.
https://exercism.org/tracks/c
MIT License
285 stars 179 forks source link

Jumped right from Hello World to Armstrong Numbers? #971

Closed dotrosedotnet closed 5 months ago

dotrosedotnet commented 6 months ago

Did I miss something? This is a massive jump, and left me entirely clueless. I tried to build a solution using google, but it was just so far ahead of anything that I'd encountered that I think I'm going to give up with this one and go back to using a coding book. I have encountered this problem with a few of the tracks, where it jumps levels without building information incrementally.

For clarity: I love that I get to learn using my own tooling on my own computer in Exercism. I am wildly grateful that you offer that functionality. Thank you. Don't stop. <3

wolf99 commented 5 months ago

Seems like a fair comment!

The order on the website follows the order of the exercises listed in the tracks config.json.

However, I think it is a long while since we considered the ordering there. Any thoughts @ryanplusplus ?

@ErikSchierboom are there any resources or suggestions to assist tracks to know how to order exercises?

ErikSchierboom commented 5 months ago

@ErikSchierboom are there any resources or suggestions to assist tracks to know how to order exercises?

Not really no. Most maintainers have traditionally used their gut feeling, which is admittedly not much in terms of guidance. Looking at the difficulties, it might be that the difficulty of armstrong-numbers could be bumped a bit, as it is currently the lowest difficulty.

https://exercism.org/tracks/c/build can be really helpful to identify problems too. If you go to the practice exercises section, you'll quickly see that the completion rate of Armstrong Numbers is very low compared to other exercises. Same goes for Isogram.

siebenschlaefer commented 5 months ago

We discussed the order shortly in issue #740 but did not follow up on that.

dotrosedotnet commented 5 months ago

Y’all are the bestOn Apr 10, 2024, at 9:16 AM, Matthias @.***> wrote: We discussed the order shortly in issue #740 but did not follow up on that.

—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.***>

ryanplusplus commented 5 months ago

@wolf99 I think this is definitely worth reworking. The resource that @ErikSchierboom shared looks like it has exactly the info we need to do this correctly.

I'll try to put up a draft of a new order in the next few days.