In this line in the instructions for the BlackJack instructions, I think it would make sense to replace “figure” with “face card”, or something else. I have never heard the word “figure” used to describe a type of playing card, and I was only able to figure out the meaning of the word in this context because I already knew the rules of blackjack as a game. I am much more familiar with the term “face card” to refer to a jack, queen or king card.
A similar change was made to the Go track for this concept exercise at Make it clear what a figure is
1 Like
If you want to open up separate track-specific threads for discussion, Crystal and Java both have this exercise and also call it a “figure card”.
I’m curious as to why this exercise is not in the problem-specifications repo if it is shared among several tracks.
The problem-specifications repo contains canonical test case data for practice exercises that tracks can use to implement those exercises., but BlackJack is instead a concept exercise. Concept exercises are track-specific because they’re tied to a concept from that track’s syllabus. A track can freely adapt an existing concept exercise from another track, but that doesn’t involve the problem-specifications repo at all.
Good explanation. Thanks
but that doesn’t involve the problem-specifications repo at all.
Though it also does not preclude it. They might be used for a concept exercise, if that track maintainer determines that it fits well. (No immediate example to show, though.)
Gigasecond Anniversary in Common Lisp on Exercism comes to mind as a concept exercise that was originally a practice exercise (gigasecond). The gigasecond-anniversary tests were taken from the deprecated gigasecond implementation, which itself predates the canonical test data for the exercise in the problem-specs repo.
Of course a track can also implement a practice exercise that isn’t in the problem specifications. A few tracks added Resistor Color Expert as an fourth Resistor Color exercise, and Ballerina has several practice exercises they’ve created themselves.
1 Like
This is an exercise that has a “flavor” that differs as well, depending on the student and the track. The gigasecond for me focuses on the base unit of “second” and so is suitable (though overly large) for other units other than time. I have spent some energy protecting it from being forced to be only usable for time or based on a different class such as Date.
I created a PR for this.
2 Likes
I am for the “face card” term, rather than “figure”, as all cards have some kind of figure.
I reopened but a “diff” could have been shown here before the PR was presented.
Your proposal is:
diff --git c/exercises/concept/blackjack/.docs/instructions.md w/exercises/concept/blackjack/.docs/instructions.md
index 532da09e..8a1fb1b1 100644
--- c/exercises/concept/blackjack/.docs/instructions.md
+++ w/exercises/concept/blackjack/.docs/instructions.md
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ Depending on your two cards and the card of the dealer, there is a strategy for
Although not optimal yet, you will follow the strategy your friend Alex has been developing, which is as follows:
- If you have a pair of aces you must always split them.
-- If you have a Blackjack (two cards that sum up to a value of 21), and the dealer does not have an ace, a figure or a ten then you automatically win.
+- If you have a Blackjack (two cards that sum up to a value of 21), and the dealer does not have an ace, a face card (Jack, Queen, King) or a ten then you automatically win.
If the dealer does have any of those cards then you'll have to stand and wait for the reveal of the other card.
- If your cards sum up to a value within the range [17, 20] you should always stand.
- If your cards sum up to a value within the range [12, 16] you should always stand unless the dealer has a 7 or higher, in which case you should always hit.
I propose that the “ten” be listed before the traditionally higher ranked face cards are listed.
1 Like
That makes sense to me. I made that change.
1 Like
I think that “face card” should be defined earlier, where the values are discussed, if we are going to enumerate what “face card” means anywhere. I do not think it should go here. We have a table presented that explains the values, we can define/declare the meaning there, shortening this line.
1 Like
Notice here that I used “ten” as the name of the ten, but in the parallel (we really should be discussing here, rather than on a PR that was opened before it was discussed and presented) conversation I had quickly used 10.
We should continue to use the names unless talking about the values.
Let’s move the enumeration of “Jack, Queen or King” to where we talk about the names and values, then when we use “face card” here it is already understood.
We should probably rework the entire table of values in that case.
Or we simply use “face cards” as “figures” was used, and leave it at that. That was the change I had expected by what was described here so far.
So I was a little surprised to see the additional. Though the Go version has the lengthy enumeration. We can do better, it does not have to be the same.
I changed the PR to simply change “figure” to “face card.”
1 Like
This is a good change, I think. I will approve it, and leave it up to you (with approval) if you want to change the order of the “ten” in relation to the face cards, providing the “ten” first, as it is the same value, but also well known to be sequentially before “Jack”.
I think I will leave the way it is.