Slashdot Mirror

If you're looking at code *you wrote* for over an hour without understanding it, you only have yourself to blame. Unless you're coding in brainfuck, I suppose.

tch

cLive ;-)

CatsEye technologies (and the associated Esoteric Languages mailing list)

While a lot of the time the radical languages (and associated compilers) that the esolang folk write consist of little more than either a Turing machine as a VM (eg Brainf--k) or an attempt at humour (eg Valgol), every so often a radical new programming paradigm presents itself.

CatsEye technologies (and the associated Esoteric Languages mailing list)

While a lot of the time the radical languages (and associated compilers) that the esolang folk write consist of little more than either a Turing machine as a VM (eg Brainf--k) or an attempt at humour (eg Valgol), every so often a radical new programming paradigm presents itself.

CatsEye technologies (and the associated Esoteric Languages mailing list)

While a lot of the time the radical languages (and associated compilers) that the esolang folk write consist of little more than either a Turing machine as a VM (eg Brainf--k) or an attempt at humour (eg Valgol), every so often a radical new programming paradigm presents itself.

Not that ridiculous at all - when compared with some of the wonderful esoteric languages you can find at Cat's Eye Technologies, home of the Esoteric Languages Mailing List and clearing house for all sorts of code designed to make your head feel funny.

The most elaborate update so far of the Befunge language, Funge-98 generalizes Befunge for one, two, or three dimensions, and provides a paradigm for Funges of any number of dimensions and topologies.

Instead of looking for radically new approaches in computer language development why doesn't someone introduce more colour into standard C. For instance we have if and while, how about adding verbs such as when, where or how.

Taking it further we might like to introduce more polite language into code such WouldYouBeSoKindAsTo or WhenYouAreReady. Imagine the code you could write...

when (time == "morning")
WouldYouBeSoKindAsTo (turn_on_alarm);


Alternatively we could convert C from English into, say, German. So if would become wenn etc. You could even mix nationalities. For instance if you wanted to be very forceful about a particular if statement you could use the German. If you wanted to seduce the code you might use the French.

Come on all it takes is some imagination. (Alternatively we could all just start using befunge!)

Who needs a JMP instruction? Just program in SMITH!

Here's a program written in BrainF*ck to calculate pi: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jafowler/pi/pi. b

Here's the analysis of the program, and a link to what the Turing-inspired BrainF*ck programming language is about.

Learn Brainf*** You won't be more employable, but you won't care.

How about a program that compiles and runs in seven different languages?
http://www.nyx.net/~gthompso/poly/polyglot.txt

Or a program that prints its own source code?
http://www.nyx.net/~gthompso/quine.htm

Or just a whole collection of weird programming-related stuff?
http://www.catseye.mb.ca/

(OK, so I'm way too late to the party and nobody's going to read this, but hey :)

Yes, it's true. I like the Menuet Operating System enough to change my whole computing world around.* Here's the bottom line: Menuet gives me more opportunities to write 32-bit assembly code. It's about more and better...

I can read my files, I can write my files, I can even write to video memory. To my surpise, the process of switching was as easy as all the Menuet OS marketing hype had promised. I was up and running as fast as I could format the floppy, Girl's Scouts Honor taken. First, let me tell you more about why I converted...

I'm an assembler geek. All those high-level abstractions found in other operating systems are for pansy-assed sissies. I want an OS that required that I coded my own TCP/IP stack before I coded a web browser. In assembler. Menuet delivered.

I discover more treats daily. For example, I have to reverse engineer Microsoft's .doc file format if I want to implement a word processor whose data files can be infected with viruses. It will be an ongoing process, but I'm thrilled so far.

*Editor's Note: Now that we've successfully converted our writer to using Menuet OS, we will be working on getting her to try writing a Befunge interpreter for it! Stay tuned for more developments!

If you want to befunge (God help you) you should use Befunge '98.

Befunge, baby.

info.

ulambda is for lusers, try brainfuck!

No empty space? I can end the search right here: s/\s//g

I knew I should have been writing denser code. Time to stop writing Python code and go back to programming in something more properly formatted, like Brainf*ck...

Nah, with all those strange symbols, it's likely a combination of APL and Befunge.

Also, for your masochistic programming pleasure, you may be interested in the polyglot list and the quine page.

For even more zany programming fun, check out Esoteric topics in Computer Programming. Oh, and my own pathetic attempt at a similar page, Miscreant Programming Languages.

Man, people who do this for a living scare me. What scares me worse are the people who wrote a compiler called Brainfuck , a language that has 8 operators and emulates a Turing machine. Even more scary are the inventors of Malbolge , a programming language that took over a year to write a "Hello World" program--IN MIXED UPPER/LOWER CASE!!!!

...but I do not think that perl is the "Write Once, Read Nowhere" langue you make it out to be ^_^

Just for a little fun, I thought I'd try out my rusting perl tricks and unroll your silly script.

$c = 'plfeY04jaJnYI';
$s = substr $c, 0, 2;
for $l (1..8) {
for ('a' x $l .. 'z' x $l){
if($c eq crypt($_, $s)) {
print "$_.$s\n";
exit;
}
}
}

If you want to see a really good password cracking program, check out Alec Muffett's great and famous Crack. It's really great, especially when you have good dictionaries. If you want to check if your password is easily cracked by Crack, you can use Alec Muffett's CrackLib. Check out my online Password-Guessability-O-Meter, I wrote it some time ago to demonstrate to one of my clients how does the CrackLib work. You just enter your desired password, and it tells you if (and why) it is easy to guess, using English, Polish, Czech, French and Latin dictionaries.

I use CrackLib for online registrations CGI scripts etc. so users can't have silly and easy to guess passwords. It can also be used with passwd program. Great library, and easy to use (there's Crypt::Cracklib Perl interface), but may be quite difficult to set up for the first time.

Not very difficile, Mister shiny@rfl.pl, but I shall compliment you for at least trying to obfuscate with the silly "q//" perl operateur ^_^

$q=q,p,.q,l,.q,f,.q,e,.q,Y,.q,0,.q,4,.q,j,.q,a,.q, J,.q,n,.q,Y,.q,I,;

The "if" statement is another ruse; suffixed "if" is in fact called before the condition of the "if" statement, and he uses this to initialise $q apparently after it's been first used. The above code is in fact equal to this:

$q = 'plfeY04jaJnYI';
$x = substr $q, 0, 2;

And it makes itself apparent that $q is the crypt hash (henceforth called $crypt) and $x is the salt ($salt).

for (++$_..$_<<3){...}

Now you are just being silly :-) $_ is not used yet and thus is 0, and ++0 is of course 1. 1<<3 is 8.

for($i = 1; $i <= 8; ++$i) {...}

Which not only looks simpler, but runs faster too ^_^

I just run this benchmark:

#!/usr/bin/perl -w

use Benchmark;

sub s1{ for ($i = 1; $i <= 1_000_000; ++$i) { } }
sub s2{ for (1 .. 1_000_000) { } }

$t1 = timestr timeit 100, \
$t2 = timestr timeit 100, \

print "1. $t1\n2. $t2\n";

1. 103 wallclock secs (87.77 usr + 0.15 sys = 87.92 CPU) @ 1.14/s (n=100)
2. 60 wallclock secs (51.93 usr + 0.04 sys = 51.97 CPU) @ 1.92/s (n=100)

But in my code this loop has only eight iterations, where the 8th one takes two years, so the loop control overhead itself doesn't really matter here. The inner loop is more important but crack() function takes most of the time, anyway.

Older versions of Perl (I don't know which exactly) created a temporary array for the range operator in foreach loop, so the code like:

for (1 .. 1_000_000_000) { ... }

The "and die" bit just is taking advantage of the short-circuit boolean operateur système. The "die" only is executing when $crypt (the origin hash) and the encrypted form of the current guess are equal, in which case the key has been found and we quit ^_^ I changed it to a nicer looking "print" statement for further clairitie.

I think you're very good, really. Most of people have no idea how to analyze such obfuscated code. Actually I'm quite disappointed that decrypting my code was so easy for you... :)

I'll tell you why and how I wrote this program. I was inspired by this code:

#!/usr/bin/perl
@a=(Lbzjoftt,Inqbujfodf,
Hvcsjt); $b="Lbssz Wbmm"
;$b =~ y/b-z/a-z/ ; $c =
" Tif ". @a ." hsfbu wj"
."suvft pg b qsphsbnnfs"
. ":\n";$c =~y/b-y/a-z/;
print"\n\n$c ";for($i=0;
$i<@a; $i++) { $a[$i] =~
y/b-y/a-z/;if($a[$i]eq$a
[-1]){print"and $a[$i]."
;}else{ print"$a[$i], ";
}}print"\n\t\t--$b\n\n";

So I wrote the first working version and started to make it as small as possible. Originally it didn't have to be obfuscated, just small. This is the smallest version I've written so far:

$c='plfeY04jaJnYI';$s=substr$c,0,
2;for(1..8){for('a'x$_..'z'x$_){
die"$_.$s\n"if crypt($_,$s)eq$c}}

$c='plfeY04jaJnYI';$s=substr$c,
0,2;for(1..8){$c eq crypt$_,$s
and die"$_.$s"for'a'x$_..'z'x$_}

$c='plfeY04jaJnYI';$s=substr$c,0,2;$k=
'a';$k++while$c ne crypt$k,$s;die"$k.$s";

Hopefully that wasn't too difficile to follow, my english is not perfect.

Just remember, Mr. shiny@rfl.pl, no langue is completely impenetrable (except perhaps Intercal, but that's a small bit pathological :-)

This Unlambda program "calculates and prints the Fibonacci numbers (as lines of asterisks)":

```s``s``sii`ki
`k.*``s``s`ks
``s`k`s`ks``s``s`ks``s`k`s`kr``s`k`sikk
`k``s`ksk

I wanted to show a Hello world example of Brainf***, but I got this error:

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.

You like Perl, so if you know Inline::C and Inline::CPR (if you don't, read Pathologically Polluting Perl by Brian Ingerson) you may enjoy understanding this code:

#!/usr/bin/cpr
int main(void) {
CPR_eval("use Inline (C => q{
char* greet() {
return \"Hello world\";
}
})");
printf("%s, I'm running under Perl version %s\n",
CPR_eval("&greet"),
CPR_eval("use Config; $Config{version}"));
return 0;
}

Are you up to date with Perl 6 development? It's going to be great and extremely powerful language. Read Larry Wall's Apocalypses and Damian Conway's Exegeses if you're interested:

• Apocalypse 1: The Ugly, the Bad, and the Good (April 2, 2001)
• Apocalypse 2: Fundamental data types, variables and the context and scoping of the language (May 3, 2001)
• Exegesis 2 (May 15, 2001)
• Apocalypse 3: Operators (October 2, 2001)
• Exegesis 3 (October 3, 2001)
• Apocalypse 4: Syntax (January 18, 2002)

...but I do not think that perl is the "Write Once, Read Nowhere" langue you make it out to be ^_^

Just for a little fun, I thought I'd try out my rusting perl tricks and unroll your silly script.

$c = 'plfeY04jaJnYI';
$s = substr $c, 0, 2;
for $l (1..8) {
for ('a' x $l .. 'z' x $l){
if($c eq crypt($_, $s)) {
print "$_.$s\n";
exit;
}
}
}

If you want to see a really good password cracking program, check out Alec Muffett's great and famous Crack. It's really great, especially when you have good dictionaries. If you want to check if your password is easily cracked by Crack, you can use Alec Muffett's CrackLib. Check out my online Password-Guessability-O-Meter, I wrote it some time ago to demonstrate to one of my clients how does the CrackLib work. You just enter your desired password, and it tells you if (and why) it is easy to guess, using English, Polish, Czech, French and Latin dictionaries.

I use CrackLib for online registrations CGI scripts etc. so users can't have silly and easy to guess passwords. It can also be used with passwd program. Great library, and easy to use (there's Crypt::Cracklib Perl interface), but may be quite difficult to set up for the first time.

Not very difficile, Mister shiny@rfl.pl, but I shall compliment you for at least trying to obfuscate with the silly "q//" perl operateur ^_^

$q=q,p,.q,l,.q,f,.q,e,.q,Y,.q,0,.q,4,.q,j,.q,a,.q, J,.q,n,.q,Y,.q,I,;

The "if" statement is another ruse; suffixed "if" is in fact called before the condition of the "if" statement, and he uses this to initialise $q apparently after it's been first used. The above code is in fact equal to this:

$q = 'plfeY04jaJnYI';
$x = substr $q, 0, 2;

And it makes itself apparent that $q is the crypt hash (henceforth called $crypt) and $x is the salt ($salt).

for (++$_..$_<<3){...}

Now you are just being silly :-) $_ is not used yet and thus is 0, and ++0 is of course 1. 1<<3 is 8.

for($i = 1; $i <= 8; ++$i) {...}

Which not only looks simpler, but runs faster too ^_^

I just run this benchmark:

#!/usr/bin/perl -w

use Benchmark;

sub s1{ for ($i = 1; $i <= 1_000_000; ++$i) { } }
sub s2{ for (1 .. 1_000_000) { } }

$t1 = timestr timeit 100, \
$t2 = timestr timeit 100, \

print "1. $t1\n2. $t2\n";

1. 103 wallclock secs (87.77 usr + 0.15 sys = 87.92 CPU) @ 1.14/s (n=100)
2. 60 wallclock secs (51.93 usr + 0.04 sys = 51.97 CPU) @ 1.92/s (n=100)

But in my code this loop has only eight iterations, where the 8th one takes two years, so the loop control overhead itself doesn't really matter here. The inner loop is more important but crack() function takes most of the time, anyway.

Older versions of Perl (I don't know which exactly) created a temporary array for the range operator in foreach loop, so the code like:

for (1 .. 1_000_000_000) { ... }

The "and die" bit just is taking advantage of the short-circuit boolean operateur système. The "die" only is executing when $crypt (the origin hash) and the encrypted form of the current guess are equal, in which case the key has been found and we quit ^_^ I changed it to a nicer looking "print" statement for further clairitie.

I think you're very good, really. Most of people have no idea how to analyze such obfuscated code. Actually I'm quite disappointed that decrypting my code was so easy for you... :)

I'll tell you why and how I wrote this program. I was inspired by this code:

#!/usr/bin/perl
@a=(Lbzjoftt,Inqbujfodf,
Hvcsjt); $b="Lbssz Wbmm"
;$b =~ y/b-z/a-z/ ; $c =
" Tif ". @a ." hsfbu wj"
."suvft pg b qsphsbnnfs"
. ":\n";$c =~y/b-y/a-z/;
print"\n\n$c ";for($i=0;
$i<@a; $i++) { $a[$i] =~
y/b-y/a-z/;if($a[$i]eq$a
[-1]){print"and $a[$i]."
;}else{ print"$a[$i], ";
}}print"\n\t\t--$b\n\n";

So I wrote the first working version and started to make it as small as possible. Originally it didn't have to be obfuscated, just small. This is the smallest version I've written so far:

$c='plfeY04jaJnYI';$s=substr$c,0,
2;for(1..8){for('a'x$_..'z'x$_){
die"$_.$s\n"if crypt($_,$s)eq$c}}

$c='plfeY04jaJnYI';$s=substr$c,
0,2;for(1..8){$c eq crypt$_,$s
and die"$_.$s"for'a'x$_..'z'x$_}

$c='plfeY04jaJnYI';$s=substr$c,0,2;$k=
'a';$k++while$c ne crypt$k,$s;die"$k.$s";

Hopefully that wasn't too difficile to follow, my english is not perfect.

Just remember, Mr. shiny@rfl.pl, no langue is completely impenetrable (except perhaps Intercal, but that's a small bit pathological :-)

This Unlambda program "calculates and prints the Fibonacci numbers (as lines of asterisks)":

```s``s``sii`ki
`k.*``s``s`ks
``s`k`s`ks``s``s`ks``s`k`s`kr``s`k`sikk
`k``s`ksk

I wanted to show a Hello world example of Brainf***, but I got this error:

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.

You like Perl, so if you know Inline::C and Inline::CPR (if you don't, read Pathologically Polluting Perl by Brian Ingerson) you may enjoy understanding this code:

#!/usr/bin/cpr
int main(void) {
CPR_eval("use Inline (C => q{
char* greet() {
return \"Hello world\";
}
})");
printf("%s, I'm running under Perl version %s\n",
CPR_eval("&greet"),
CPR_eval("use Config; $Config{version}"));
return 0;
}

Are you up to date with Perl 6 development? It's going to be great and extremely powerful language. Read Larry Wall's Apocalypses and Damian Conway's Exegeses if you're interested:

• Apocalypse 1: The Ugly, the Bad, and the Good (April 2, 2001)
• Apocalypse 2: Fundamental data types, variables and the context and scoping of the language (May 3, 2001)
• Exegesis 2 (May 15, 2001)
• Apocalypse 3: Operators (October 2, 2001)
• Exegesis 3 (October 3, 2001)
• Apocalypse 4: Syntax (January 18, 2002)

...but I do not think that perl is the "Write Once, Read Nowhere" langue you make it out to be ^_^

Just for a little fun, I thought I'd try out my rusting perl tricks and unroll your silly script.

$c = 'plfeY04jaJnYI';
$s = substr $c, 0, 2;
for $l (1..8) {
for ('a' x $l .. 'z' x $l){
if($c eq crypt($_, $s)) {
print "$_.$s\n";
exit;
}
}
}

If you want to see a really good password cracking program, check out Alec Muffett's great and famous Crack. It's really great, especially when you have good dictionaries. If you want to check if your password is easily cracked by Crack, you can use Alec Muffett's CrackLib. Check out my online Password-Guessability-O-Meter, I wrote it some time ago to demonstrate to one of my clients how does the CrackLib work. You just enter your desired password, and it tells you if (and why) it is easy to guess, using English, Polish, Czech, French and Latin dictionaries.

I use CrackLib for online registrations CGI scripts etc. so users can't have silly and easy to guess passwords. It can also be used with passwd program. Great library, and easy to use (there's Crypt::Cracklib Perl interface), but may be quite difficult to set up for the first time.

Not very difficile, Mister shiny@rfl.pl, but I shall compliment you for at least trying to obfuscate with the silly "q//" perl operateur ^_^

$q=q,p,.q,l,.q,f,.q,e,.q,Y,.q,0,.q,4,.q,j,.q,a,.q, J,.q,n,.q,Y,.q,I,;

The "if" statement is another ruse; suffixed "if" is in fact called before the condition of the "if" statement, and he uses this to initialise $q apparently after it's been first used. The above code is in fact equal to this:

$q = 'plfeY04jaJnYI';
$x = substr $q, 0, 2;

And it makes itself apparent that $q is the crypt hash (henceforth called $crypt) and $x is the salt ($salt).

for (++$_..$_<<3){...}

Now you are just being silly :-) $_ is not used yet and thus is 0, and ++0 is of course 1. 1<<3 is 8.

for($i = 1; $i <= 8; ++$i) {...}

Which not only looks simpler, but runs faster too ^_^

I just run this benchmark:

#!/usr/bin/perl -w

use Benchmark;

sub s1{ for ($i = 1; $i <= 1_000_000; ++$i) { } }
sub s2{ for (1 .. 1_000_000) { } }

$t1 = timestr timeit 100, \
$t2 = timestr timeit 100, \

print "1. $t1\n2. $t2\n";

1. 103 wallclock secs (87.77 usr + 0.15 sys = 87.92 CPU) @ 1.14/s (n=100)
2. 60 wallclock secs (51.93 usr + 0.04 sys = 51.97 CPU) @ 1.92/s (n=100)

But in my code this loop has only eight iterations, where the 8th one takes two years, so the loop control overhead itself doesn't really matter here. The inner loop is more important but crack() function takes most of the time, anyway.

Older versions of Perl (I don't know which exactly) created a temporary array for the range operator in foreach loop, so the code like:

for (1 .. 1_000_000_000) { ... }

The "and die" bit just is taking advantage of the short-circuit boolean operateur système. The "die" only is executing when $crypt (the origin hash) and the encrypted form of the current guess are equal, in which case the key has been found and we quit ^_^ I changed it to a nicer looking "print" statement for further clairitie.

I think you're very good, really. Most of people have no idea how to analyze such obfuscated code. Actually I'm quite disappointed that decrypting my code was so easy for you... :)

I'll tell you why and how I wrote this program. I was inspired by this code:

#!/usr/bin/perl
@a=(Lbzjoftt,Inqbujfodf,
Hvcsjt); $b="Lbssz Wbmm"
;$b =~ y/b-z/a-z/ ; $c =
" Tif ". @a ." hsfbu wj"
."suvft pg b qsphsbnnfs"
. ":\n";$c =~y/b-y/a-z/;
print"\n\n$c ";for($i=0;
$i<@a; $i++) { $a[$i] =~
y/b-y/a-z/;if($a[$i]eq$a
[-1]){print"and $a[$i]."
;}else{ print"$a[$i], ";
}}print"\n\t\t--$b\n\n";

So I wrote the first working version and started to make it as small as possible. Originally it didn't have to be obfuscated, just small. This is the smallest version I've written so far:

$c='plfeY04jaJnYI';$s=substr$c,0,
2;for(1..8){for('a'x$_..'z'x$_){
die"$_.$s\n"if crypt($_,$s)eq$c}}

$c='plfeY04jaJnYI';$s=substr$c,
0,2;for(1..8){$c eq crypt$_,$s
and die"$_.$s"for'a'x$_..'z'x$_}

$c='plfeY04jaJnYI';$s=substr$c,0,2;$k=
'a';$k++while$c ne crypt$k,$s;die"$k.$s";

Hopefully that wasn't too difficile to follow, my english is not perfect.

Just remember, Mr. shiny@rfl.pl, no langue is completely impenetrable (except perhaps Intercal, but that's a small bit pathological :-)

This Unlambda program "calculates and prints the Fibonacci numbers (as lines of asterisks)":

```s``s``sii`ki
`k.*``s``s`ks
``s`k`s`ks``s``s`ks``s`k`s`kr``s`k`sikk
`k``s`ksk

I wanted to show a Hello world example of Brainf***, but I got this error:

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.

You like Perl, so if you know Inline::C and Inline::CPR (if you don't, read Pathologically Polluting Perl by Brian Ingerson) you may enjoy understanding this code:

#!/usr/bin/cpr
int main(void) {
CPR_eval("use Inline (C => q{
char* greet() {
return \"Hello world\";
}
})");
printf("%s, I'm running under Perl version %s\n",
CPR_eval("&greet"),
CPR_eval("use Config; $Config{version}"));
return 0;
}

Are you up to date with Perl 6 development? It's going to be great and extremely powerful language. Read Larry Wall's Apocalypses and Damian Conway's Exegeses if you're interested:

• Apocalypse 1: The Ugly, the Bad, and the Good (April 2, 2001)
• Apocalypse 2: Fundamental data types, variables and the context and scoping of the language (May 3, 2001)
• Exegesis 2 (May 15, 2001)
• Apocalypse 3: Operators (October 2, 2001)
• Exegesis 3 (October 3, 2001)
• Apocalypse 4: Syntax (January 18, 2002)

perl has the concept of barewords. They are just like a normal variable but they don't have the $ in front. A STDIO is a common one that appears in many programs. With the right module, you can redefine perl to look like just about anything for example Perligata which changes the parsing rules to a latin form where the subject of the verb is defined by its suffix.

A few days ago /. had a story about many odd languages. While some (most?) of them seem quite useless, if writing a program in them opens your mind, it can make you a better coder. For example brainf*ck is a pure turing language with 8 instructions -- risc taken all the way down. Hardware desgined to run brainf*ck could be clocked at the several hundred Ghz and could be piplined like mad.

Would most definately have to be Brainf*ck. I really think it fits the bill for what you are looking for. It has great OO support, and is extremely easy to learn. The code you will create with it is tight and fast, and the possibilities are endless with what you can do with it.

Take for example the following chunk of bf code:


>+++++++++[<++++++++>-]<.>++++++[&l t;+++++>-]<-.+++++++..++
+.
>>+++++++[<++++++>-]+.>++++++++++.

That code is a complete program, and will actually print out..."Hello, World!" can you believe it? In only 4 lines? Surely you jest? I can honestly tell you the answer is no, and dont call me Shirly. There are even rumors of bf supporting .NET with the upcoming * operator in version 6. Check it out, you wont be sorry.

...but there's people out there who design languages for fun, you know. Take a look at the languages on the esoteric programming languages ring or maybe even subscribe to the mailing list, but only if it all interests you.

As long as the language is Turing-complete, it should be possible

So as long as its turing-complete, .NET could work with it? So can someone get cracking with BrainF***) and Befunge 93?

As long as the language is Turing-complete, it should be possible

So as long as its turing-complete, .NET could work with it? So can someone get cracking with BrainF***) and Befunge 93?

If you're into esoteric languages, the reference page is the Cat's Eyes page.

As an amateur geek, does being interviewed by a rabid geek site like Slashdot -- a site that normally interviews people who rewrite kernel modules in brainf*ck for fun -- scare you? Or is being a gen-u-wine celebrity and the actor formerly known as "the boy" insulation against such terror?

And (sorry if this is in your FAQ but since your server is melting so I can't check) are there actors in Hollywood that are as geeky / more geeky than you that one would never suspect? Or are there actors who portray geeks that are confused by the number of switches on a hair-drier? In other words who do you talk code with and who do you poke fun at?

Another page on weird languages is here.

A clueless moderator marked it down as flamebait. A language has to be pretty awful for that to happen.

Anyway, here's Brainfuck Also here

It's Turing complete, 8 instructions, and programs look something like this

A clueless moderator marked it down as flamebait. A language has to be pretty awful for that to happen.

Anyway, here's Brainfuck Also here

It's Turing complete, 8 instructions, and programs look something like this

There are some good examples of quines (self-replicating programs) at http://www.nyx.net/~gthompso/quine.htm

Also, I like Esoteric Topics in Computer Programming

Aw, come on. This is so very much a personal thing, it isn't even funny anymore.

For most languages, except those that have been made intentionaly difficult to read, it is just a matter of experience whether the language is easy to read or not. (And now I probably get jumped by a Brainfuck supporter.)

Besides, I think it is a good thing to get exposed to some radically different things now and then. It keeps your brain in shape.

Just so you know, this site has links to all kinds of weird programming languages.

I think one of the workaround to this, is to make the publication of the source code necessary prior to granting any software patent

Oh great, I can see it now, pattens with very vegue discriptions, and the actual code in BF, INTERCAL and befunge . Excellent, now we will all be able to follow what's going on. Can we get a law passed making it a capital crime to have a pattent with polyglot source in these languages?

PLEASE DON'T GIVE UP

10 DO >>[-<+]<,

COME FROM 10

PLEASE DO DIE NOW

(and no, that won't work. Unless I'm really lucky.)

I think one of the workaround to this, is to make the publication of the source code necessary prior to granting any software patent

Oh great, I can see it now, pattens with very vegue discriptions, and the actual code in BF, INTERCAL and befunge . Excellent, now we will all be able to follow what's going on. Can we get a law passed making it a capital crime to have a pattent with polyglot source in these languages?

PLEASE DON'T GIVE UP

10 DO >>[-<+]<,

COME FROM 10

PLEASE DO DIE NOW

(and no, that won't work. Unless I'm really lucky.)

If we want a decent language for the new millennium, we should go for APL. Fast, concise, and an ideal teaching language (note that the link is to APlus, a blend of APL and C which is apparently used by the Morgan Stanley investment bank). True, modern computers don't come with keyboards with enough keys to program it, but we can overcome that with overlays.

Alternatively, I'd love to see someone try web scripting in Brainfuck (advantages: simple, clear, easy to write an interpreter), or Befunge (break out of the depressing paradigms of modern languages! Truely adds a new dimension to program code).

For the winning program to have been written in Brainfuck.

I bet the winning program will be coded in befunge

We need a brainfuck port.

I'm currently working on ObjectSim, a minimalist OO language based on transparently accessing remote object stores through pattern matching. Its design is quite unlike that of most other languages, I suppose the "feel" is more akin to that of, say, SQL or other stereotypical "4GLs" than of "traditional" programming languages. This is despite ObjectSim being Turing-complete.

I have a more complete description of ObjectSim, and the first implementation (on Scheme, and still using s-expression syntax) is slated for later this month. We're discussing it (amongst other things) on the Cat's Eye mailing list.

Ohyeah? I'd like to see somone enter using Brainf*ck! Or at least Befunge.

Bragging rights... hell, I would worship anyone who did this. (And I'm talking virgin sacrifices, et. al.)

Ohyeah? I'd like to see somone enter using Brainf*ck! Or at least Befunge.

Bragging rights... hell, I would worship anyone who did this. (And I'm talking virgin sacrifices, et. al.)

All kidding aside, I'm not even sure Slashdot's lameness filter will let brainfuck code through. [brainfuck quine deleted] Nope, it gets "Ascii Art. How creative. Not here though.. You'll just have to follow the link on your own.

(BTW, that was a really lame troll.)

As usual, I'm one step ahead of the rest of Slashdot :) While creating an IDE for the 2-D tarpit language Orthogonal, I had some quite freaky ideas, and I'm putting them together into something I call PORTUGOL. It's based on the grid rewriting paradigm, 2-D, mostly graphical (non-ASCII, designed to be used under an IDE) and very unfamiliar altogether to those used to "orthodox" languages like C and Pascal. However, one of its many interesting peculiarities is that all identifiers and names, as well as the IDE itself, is in Portuguese. Granted, this by itself isn't much, considering that Portuguese uses the Latin alphabet just like English, but the combination of Portuguese text and comments with the language-specific glyphs that basically make up a suplementary "alphabet" in and of itself... it's quite interesting.

PORTUGOL has been focused, lately, on educational goals. Oddly, I've presented an alpha version to some (Portuguese-speaking) college kids with some advanced math knowledge but no programming experience, and they've taken it to it quite easily; with my help, they grokked most of the system in a couple of hours. This is excellent time, especially compared to the ye^H^Hmo^H^Hwe^H^Hdays it takes for one to learn rudimentary C.

Anyone interested in PORTUGOL can email me here and/or join the Cat's Eye Language List.

-- Dave