Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tetris In 140 Bytes

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the a-little-code dept.

Programming 215

mikejuk writes "Is it possible to write a JavaScript program in no more than a tweet's length? A website called 140byt.es says it is and has an implementation of Tetris to prove it. Ok, it only has two types of block — hence its title "Binary Tetris" — and there's no rotate, but it works. The blocks fall down the screen and you steer them into place. You can try it out by playing the demo. Of course the real fun is in figuring out how it works and there is lots of help on the site — so if you're bored how about the 140 character challenge?"

cancel ×

215 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Binary Tetris (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092561)

Binary Tetris?

http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/programming_64.png

Nostalgia ... (5, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092575)

It reminds me of the old days when code was efficient and had to fit onto small discs and into limited RAM and/or ROM. The original Mac ROMs were 128k, and all the apps had to run in 128k of RAM. It was amazing what could be done when it just had to fit.

Re:Nostalgia ... (5, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092701)

It reminds me of the old days when code was efficient and had to fit onto small discs and into limited RAM and/or ROM. The original Mac ROMs were 128k, and all the apps had to run in 128k of RAM. It was amazing what could be done when it just had to fit.

Get off my lawn. The ZX-80 and -81 had 1 kB, and there were plenty of games for them. Then there were other computers, all with limited memory.
I'm sure there are lots of people here except yours truly who have written a variant of SNAKE.

Re:Nostalgia ... (0)

Bigbutt (65939) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093547)

2kb actually. And you could get a 16k memory module.

[John]

Re:Nostalgia ... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39093585)

The european versions had just 1k (two 2114 chips of 1k x 4 bit)

Re:Nostalgia ... (5, Funny)

peragrin (659227) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092809)

However the code itself is 140 bytes, the number of libraries required to operate it is at 10 gigabytes.

Re:Nostalgia ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092917)

The point here is code that fits in a tweet.

Perhaps it takes 10 gigs worth of source, if you took the liberty of lumping entire swaths of lib files which might only provide 1 function, or 1 constant even. Your exaggeration is to no point.

It is true that authored source has no bearing on actual code used to create something... but that's why it''s much fairer to point out the size of a static binary.... where this would be quite small if run in a terminal, and quite big if you counted an entire browser as "size".

Re:Nostalgia ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39093337)

Oh, well, in that case, allow me to introduce you to my 4 character Tetris program.

t();

(That's a function call to an external library that does all the other shit needed)

Re:Nostalgia ... (1)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093567)

Has that been added as a Golf builtin yet?

Re:Nostalgia ... (5, Funny)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093427)

A tweet? I'm not familiar with that metric. Maybe you could convert it to something more standard like Libraries of Congress.

Re:Nostalgia ... (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093175)

So what? If enough computers meet the requirements then it's fine in my book. After all my computer requires electricity to work.

In fact if it's cross platform on multiple browsers it's better in some ways than those intros/demos that only ran on one specific platform (I won't be surprised if some of those were even fussier and wouldn't work on some variants of the same platform).

Re:Nostalgia ... (5, Informative)

thesh0ck (1983948) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093279)

The fact is.. only the math is 140bytes. If you view the source and scroll down you see there is way more than that to actually make it work. Including javascript for controlling the game and displaying the blocks. It is in fact 1361 bytes.

Re:Nostalgia ... (4, Funny)

MisterMidi (1119653) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093413)

+1 insightful. We could make an entire OS in 140 bytes this way.

Re:Nostalgia ... (2)

someWebGeek (2566673) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092821)

Reminds me of those very same days and renews my joy that we now have the freedom to use "inefficient," mnemonically useful names for variables and functions along with coding conventions that give the next programmer at least a remote chance to understand and support the code without great genius.

Re:Nostalgia ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39093401)

Sorry, this is Slashdot. I am unable to tell if you are being sarcastic or you are one of the members of this community who feel writing undocumented code that required documentation is a golden calf that keeps the plebs out of the wondrous art of coding.

Re:Nostalgia ... (2)

_merlin (160982) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092931)

That's not even true. The original Mac had 64kB ROM, and 28kB of it was taken up by the QuickDraw graphics library. The 512Ke and Plus had a massive 128kB ROM. The ROM size went up to 256kB with the SE and II, then doubled again to 512kB with the IIci. It eventually got up to 1MB with the Quadra. The biggest classic Mac ROMs were 2MB in the Quadra AV and "blackbird" PowerBook 500 series.

Re:Nostalgia ... (1)

Tarsir (1175373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093127)

128K? What a bunch of bloated crapware. I was working on code that had to fit within 28K last year

Re:Nostalgia ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39093861)

AFAIK there was 64KB of ROM.

Read the source code - love the licence.txt (5, Interesting)

Dark$ide (732508) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092585)

Take a look at the source code [github.com]

You'll love the non-restrictive EULA.

Re:Read the source code - love the licence.txt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092621)

EPIC!

Re:Read the source code - love the licence.txt (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092685)

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
  copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
  as the name is changed.

Why should i have to change the name? I feel that is overly and unnecessarly restrictive.
I should have the right not to change the name if i don't want to.
This source code is useless to me.

Re:Read the source code - love the licence.txt (-1, Troll)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092795)

I see it calls two base functions in Java. I guess that isnt part of the limit.
So then, what does one consider 140 byte code? Just the main executable? Because in reality, the reliant code for the Date and parsInt are much much longer.

Re:Read the source code - love the licence.txt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39093629)

Because in reality, the reliant code for the Date and parsInt are much much longer.

In reality, you're fucking retarded.
Please tell me you're not serious.

Also, Javascript != Java, get that into your thick skull.

In Soviet Rus. LICENSE wastes you! (2)

JCPM (2577407) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092813)

But if they include the LICENSE, it's much bigger than 140 bytes, some as >200 times the size of the program. The LICENSE is the only wasteful thing that did exist on the Earth.

JCPM: to erase the LICENSE and then this program is much smaller, adjusted to 140 bytes, otherwise, it will be lying me.

Re:Read the source code - love the licence.txt (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092873)

You'll love the non-restrictive EULA.

It's called WTFPL [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Read the source code - love the licence.txt (1)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092897)

Bold. He assumes full liability for any and all damages that his code does. Implied, since there is no clause that says he doesn't. If that's not necessary, why do all other licenses have that part?

Re:Read the source code - love the licence.txt (2)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093571)

But it's version 2? I wonder how bad version 1 was!

Re:Read the source code - love the licence.txt (1)

edxwelch (600979) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093605)

funny, I don't see that one on the officially approved list at opensource.org

Obilg Bill Gates (if he ever said it) reference (-1, Redundant)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092611)

640 K should be enough for anybody....

Re:Obilg Bill Gates (if he ever said it) reference (1)

rbpOne (2184720) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092671)

Ofcourse Bill Gates never said such a thing.

Somewhat Misleading (5, Informative)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092613)

Not to diminish their accomplishment, because this is very cool, but the 140 byte implementation is the base logic, it's not the actual printing or keyboard handling. Maybe that's nitpicking, but technically you can't just copy/paste that code and have the game, so I find the summary misleading.

Re:Somewhat Misleading (2)

melikamp (631205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092661)

Indeed. The actual source has about 955 characters, which is not that impressive for a game so gimped.

Re:Somewhat Misleading (4, Informative)

anonymov (1768712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092735)

Almost kilobyte? Yep, not very impressive considering what people build in 1 kB of Javascript [js1k.com] .

Not to mention all the cool things people stuff in 512 byte intros for demo parties.

Re:Somewhat Misleading (5, Informative)

hydrofix (1253498) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093037)

Here [js1k.com] 's actually a full Tetris with sound in 1016 characters!

Re:Somewhat Misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092825)

Yes, the summary is misleading, but we all knew at some level that it had to be. After all, Javascript is not binary code and requires a 10MB+ web browser to make it work. But it is a cute implementation and I like how it harkens back to the second half of the 1970's, when all sorts of interesting games were being made and yet most fit easily in a 4KB cartridge.

Re:Somewhat Misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092923)

So, is it possible to write Tetris in 140 bytes of JavaScript? No, not even when almost all of the code you're executing doesn't count because it's part of the web browser or operating system.

lol. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092619)

Everything old is new again... again.

What next... People will start to care how much space a webpage uses?

Not really... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092623)

var t =
function(a,b,c,d,e){return d+=c,e=a|b<<d,d<0|a&b<<d&&(a=e=parseInt((a|b<<c).toString(d=32).replace(/v/,""),d),b=new Date%2?1:3),[a,b,d,e]}
 
// Controller and Display
 
var out = document.getElementById("output");
 
var board = 0,
    block = 3,
    position = 32,
    display;
 
function update(offset){
 
  var txt = "",
    result = t(board,block,position, offset);
 
  board = result[0];
  block = result[1]
  position = result[2]
  display = result[3];
 
  display = ( 1<<30 | + display ).toString(2);
 
  for(var i=1; i<31;i++){
    txt += display[i] == "1" ? "#" : ".";
    if(i%5 == 0) txt+= "<br>";
  }
 
  out.innerHTML = txt;
}
 
update(0);
 
onkeydown = function(e){
 
  var offset = 0;
 
  switch (e.keyCode){
    case 37: offset = 1; break;
    case 39: offset = -1; break;
    case 40: offset = -5; break;
  }
 
  update(offset);
}
 
var speed = 1000;
 
function loop(){
  update(-5);
  setTimeout(loop, speed-=5);
}
 
loop();

... is more than 140 bytes.

It is still requiring a virtual machine. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092627)

To have the program run, you have to have a javascript interpreter. That is cheating.

Re:It is still requiring a virtual machine. (4, Funny)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092687)

To write that post you had to have a bunch of silicon doped to recreate basic logic gates, a kernal to pass it instructions, an OS to let you interact with the kernal, a browser to connect it to a worldwide network and so on. This is cheating. Real Slashdotters use a butterfly.

Re:It is still requiring a virtual machine. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092913)

It appears that "real slashdotters" also endless reuse a tired xkcd joke.

Re:It is still requiring a virtual machine. (2)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092941)

Hey, if there's open source comedy out there why bother bootstrapping your own gags?

Re:It is still requiring a virtual machine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092957)

To write that post you had to have a bunch of silicon doped to recreate basic logic gates, a kernal to pass it instructions, an OS to let you interact with the kernal, a browser to connect it to a worldwide network and so on. This is cheating. Real Slashdotters use a butterfly.

... and a kernel, in all honesty.

Cool but buggy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092629)

If one of the 2-blocks goes to far to the side, it will wrap around. If one of the 1-blocks goes to far to the side... I'm not really sure what happens. Something odd at any rate. You can use it to tunnel them to the bottom, though.

I'm not really sure what could be cut down to make space for the bounds-checking, though. Maybe the constraints are just too tight.

Re:Cool but buggy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092727)

It's kinda funny. With some effort you can even get those double blocks to float in the second layer.

Dear /. Overlords (5, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092631)

so if your bored

Dear /. Overlords,

Would it be too much trouble to plug some type of grammar and spelling module into the slash-code?
Not for us, the /. users; for you, the /. editors. I believe that in this wonderful age of computing, we wouldn't
begrudge you guys a little help before you hit "submit."

Sincerely,
You're

Re:Dear /. Overlords (5, Funny)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092665)

Your being to picky. People care less about grammar these days ten most other things. Irregardless, there doing the best they can

Re:Dear /. Overlords (0)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092853)

EPIC!

Re:Dear /. Overlords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092889)

You mispelled grammer.

Hats off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39093467)

I've had a double take after seeing 'grammar' and 'irregardless' in the same line and had to re-read it all. Well played sir :)

Re:Dear /. Overlords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39093919)

That was awesomely cromulent. Slashdot's post-monkeys are such loosers.

Re:Dear /. Overlords (0)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092919)

Seconded. How does one even come up with the idea to work as a writer if you can't even write very simple English correctly? (Or, from the other perspective, how does one get hired as a writer without having even very basic writing skills?)

Re:Dear /. Overlords (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093435)

how does one get hired as a writer without having even very basic writing skills?

By being hired by a manager who also has a degree in journalism.

Re:Dear /. Overlords (0)

Riventree (693212) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092929)

+1 The difference between there they're and their, it's and its, etc., isn't rocket science. They teach it (successfully) in elementary school.

Not 140 bytes (3, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092637)

The function requires an animation loop and event handler otherwise it does nothing. After that, it's way more than 140 bytes.

Optimization (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092827)

Ok. But considering the trend in using whatever memory and resources are available, the currently available Tetrises would rather take 140 MB. Many programmers just build ridiculously inefficient and inelegant algorithms, just because the amount of resources let them do so.

Re:Optimization (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093925)

By the time you add all the bytes used by the Web Browser and OS required to run this software, it's probably larger than 140MB.

A 140 byte bootable Tetris floppy image would be much more interesting

Re:Not 140 bytes (4, Insightful)

Gavin Scott (15916) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092847)

Yes, it's about 816 characters in total. This is complete fail compared to the kind of stuff that's done for the IOCCC competition. The 140 byte function they wrote implements once tiny part of the whole thing, and looking at it suggests that there really aren't going to be many interesting programs possible in 140 bytes of javascript.

If you want to see actually impressive tiny programs written in 2K of C code, like the guy who wrote an entire BASIC interpreter one year and then followed it up with a compiler for the same language the next year, then check out the IOCCC sinners page:

http://www.ioccc.org/years.html [ioccc.org]

G.

Re:Not 140 bytes (4, Funny)

Gavin Scott (15916) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092851)

Was supposed to be "winners" of course, but then "sinners" might well be the more appropriate term anyway...

G.

Re:Not 140 bytes (0)

equex (747231) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093907)

meh i was gonna mod you funny but had a twitch (major hangover) and rated you overrated instead :) i thought the same thing essentially!

So if your bored (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092647)

My bored what!?!

Still not as good as: (5, Interesting)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092693)

Chess in 672 bytes [ox.ac.uk]

Re:Still not as good as: (3, Informative)

pdh11 (227974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093479)

Nor this http://survex.com/~olly/rheolism/ [survex.com] : real Tetris in one line of BBC BASIC, 255 bytes after tokenisation. All the shapes are stored in one 32-bit constant. It's just amazing.

Peter

Not 140 Bytes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092765)

Only the model part of the model-view-controller program is 140 bytes.

is it possible to write javascript in 140 chars? (1)

lkcl (517947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092775)

null;

Hmm I could write Tetris... (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092835)

...in only 6 bytes.

More! (3, Insightful)

slasho81 (455509) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092781)

Now, this is proper Slashdot material. More of this, please!

Oh, we used to DREAM of having 140 bytes (1, Funny)

beamdriver (554241) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092783)

When I was young, we had to code an entire web browser in 8 12 bit words using only the three switches on the front panel.

And we were grateful to have it.

Tetris in 6 bytes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092789)

Tetris

Not really Tetris, Not really an implementation (1)

hydrofix (1253498) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092799)

If you look at the site [github.com] , it is obvious that this is neither Tetris nor an implementation of Tetris. It is just a part of the game that when given the current layout in certain encoding, the current user input and some other state variables can tell you what is the next state. All of this is meaningless unless you know what should you do with this state information. Crucially, included is neither the drivers to read user input or the method to render the game board for display.

So yes, this is one part of an implementation of a Tetris. But then again, any given block of code less than 140 characters in length from any full implementation has also a claim for being a part of an implementation of "Tetris". So I therefore proclaim that I have beaten them by my even shorter "implementation", which simply consists of the letter u (a part of crucial JavaScript keywords like "function" and "return") for it has an equally valid claim for an "implementation" of "Tetris" as this function, in some perverted regard ;).

It doesn't help that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39092823)

... Javascript was built to be human-readable.

If those commands were shorter, you could probably fit the rest of the code in a small space too.
You could probably write a wrapper layer to make all those commands 1 letter, well, most.
Can you ever make "return" smaller? I tried a few ways, but never managed to do it so gave up.

I call bullshit... (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092901)

... because they're pretending that the many tens of thousands of lines of code in the JavaScript interpreter don't count. They do, because those 140 bytes are useless without it.

Re:I call bullshit... (1)

anonymov (1768712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092935)

... because they're pretending that the many tens of thousands of lines of code in the OS and libraries don't count ...
... because they're pretending that the many tens of thousands of lines of HDL code in the processor don't count ...

True demoscener builds his own CPU out of transistors and resistors. Some suggest that using logic gates ICs is acceptable, but they're wimps.

Re:I call bullshit... (1, Offtopic)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093135)

I just knew that some contrary doofus looking for a pissing contest would trot out a comment like yours. Why don't I see the exact same foolishness from you repeated in reply to the other comments that made exactly the same point I did? Congratulations, you win the argument on a laughable Relativist technicality that no one but you takes seriously.

Re:I call bullshit... (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093095)

At some point you have to draw the line where the program stops and the interpreter begins. The OS is another example.

I think I'd cut it off at the point where everything becomes generic, so the interpreter is a general device that can be used for other programs, not just this game.

A tweet is longer than that (2)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092907)

Twitter uses utf-8, so the size of a tweet is 1120 bytes.

useful for SMS Low-Orbit Canyon DDoS. (1)

JCPM (2577407) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092993)

Each one of the mobil phones will receive an unauthorized hidden 140-byte SMS Javascript message that will used for Distributed Denial of Service against mobil telephone operators as by example, the monopolied ATandT in USofA.

JCPM: useful as screensaver of SMS Low-Orbit Canyon DDoS, and the consumer will be playing gratis to this game Tetris.

Re:A tweet is longer than that (1)

tiffany352 (2485630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093167)

UTF-8 is 8 BITS, not 8 BYTES. The largest per-character encoding of Unicode as far as I know is utf-32, 32 bits or 4 bytes.

Re:A tweet is longer than that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39093195)

each character is 8 bytes? what implementation of utf-8 is this?

Re:A tweet is longer than that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39093253)

No, it would have to use UCS-4 to make it that big. UTF-8 makes the characters >1 byte only for those that require it.

140 bytes and a couple of bugs (1)

Roujo (2577771) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092911)

Try pressing left until you go off the screen. Wooo, secret level! =D

Your bored (2)

Higgins_Boson (2569429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092945)

figuring out how it works and there is lots of help on the site — so if your bored how about the 140 character challenge?

If my WHAT is bored? I don't get this line.

Re:Your bored (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39093543)

The real question is if my bored what?

pong in 50 bytes of x86 assembler (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 2 years ago | (#39092987)

Some time ago, I participated in a contest to see who could write the shortest Pong game in x86 assembler. Of course entries used BIOS calls and ran on the text screen. The winner's entry was 50 bytes. Got about 30 entries in all, averaging somewhere around 75 bytes.

Fucken (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39093063)

proofread you're submissions. Sheesh, youse merkins all y'all illiterate, er wat?

I have a shorter Tetris implementation (4, Funny)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093185)

Here is my Tetris implementation:

a()

However, it only works on custom Javascript interpreters which have a global a() function that implements a full game of Tetris.

Re:I have a shorter Tetris implementation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39093809)

.

It works on my custom programming interpreter that uses '.' as the Tetris function.

See also: HQ9+ [esolangs.org]

Geesh... (4, Informative)

taoboy (118003) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093319)

#!/usr/bin/perl

use StupidShitIveWritten::Tetris(tetris);

tetris;

see the same programmers do it on an atari 2600 (1)

Danathar (267989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093447)

Let's have a competition where we pull out some old hardware (like the 2600) and THEN see what they can do.

We all know the old guys did it. What about today's younger coders? Can they program something fun and useful in 4K using the programming languages available a 2600?

Re:see the same programmers do it on an atari 2600 (1)

swb (14022) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093553)

Do you mean to limit them by programming languages or the internal resources on a 2600 system?

Theoretically, newer languages and better tool chains might possibly result in something as good or better than what 2600 developers produced at the time. There may have been coding techniques that were known or attempted but just proved prohibitive with the tool chains of the the 2600 era.

On the other hand, 2600 developers weren't distracted with the web and were razor-focused hand -coded and -debugged assembler.

The Tetris Company (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093471)

How long until The Tetris Company fires its next round of takedowns?

Re:The Tetris Company (1)

discord5 (798235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093887)

How long until The Tetris Company fires its next round of takedowns?

They'll start once the lawyers stop salivating on the license included with the javascript.

They're seeing dollar sings already.

html tag (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093499)

I wouldn't be surprised if, one day, W3C would add tetris to the (already hairy) HTML specification. Then, a mere 9 bytes would suffice:

<tetris/>

You see, sadly, the most effective language for targeting the web, HTML, was never designed for experienced programmers but for the average joe who doesn't care about formal languages anyway.

Re:html tag (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093899)

but for the average joe who doesn't care about formal languages anyway.

Yeah... the average joe can't use HTML. They would use a visual editor.

Next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39093507)

Make them do it in Brainfuck [wikipedia.org] .

Slashdot has forgotten history (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39093707)

Has all the coders of the 80's/90's demoscene died already?

Interesting (2)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39093893)

This is easier than any game of Tetris I ever played... there's a nice grid of dots displayed to line up pieces with.

And when you get a two-column piece, it allows you to move the right half of the piece off screen, causing the piece to "wrap" around the edge of the screen....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>