That quiz ranged from silly curiosities to actual common mistakes.<p>I really dislike questions like "Most portable", etc where you have to answer what you know they want you to rather than say "I don't know how good all compiler compliance is in this respect, I suspect most do it fine, but c-compilers vary widely in quality, would you really like me to go research the standard and find out how good compliance is with respect to this behavior?"<p>Portability is only a concern for a subset of embedded programmers, whereas most of the other questions are a concern for most people.<p>Ditto for the multithreading operation item (Although I suppose most embedded programmers have ISRs at least to deal with).<p>In general, the author of the article is completely misinterpreting the test results which answer:<p>How well are embedded programmers at passing a test which involves esoteric declarations, overly detailed knowledge about compiler compliance and general portability questions probably in excess of what you worry about in any embedded design position, and otherwise designed to be beyond the experience of most practitioners in the field?<p>The use of a grade school grading scheme for the test is juvenile at best. They are VASTLY underrating the embedded developer pool.<p>For single platform coders, especially working on largely modern code, 6/10 is a fine score.<p>People who write for single platforms have no reason to be good at the portability questions. People who write for single platforms have no reason to be good at the compiler compliance questions. People who do not work on  old code without "don't be tricky" condemnations have no reason to have memorized esoteric declarations of C variables which aren't commonly used.<p>Anyone who wanted 80-100% scores for MOST embedded positions would be completely wasting their companies money on overly expensive engineers. Only companies which have a multi-threaded legacy codeset which is designed to be compiled on unknown systems, running on multiple processor machines actually needs all the knowledge the test tests for, and if the company has good code reviews, such as all the "oh no" cases the article writer put out there, only SOME of the staff needs to know all these things, the rest can learn them in code reviews.