Slashdot Mirror

> Source is documentation, how much more do you need?

In the case of some source code, quite a lot.

With a lot of upfront planning, the right database, SSL, page generation and CGI libraries, you might be able to hack it at 1000 lines of C code.

Saying "you can do some really horrible stuff" in Perl in fact tells me that you probably don't know much about programming, at all. You can "do horrible stuff" in *any* programming language. Over the years I've seen more than my fair share of horrible C, C++, Java, Ruby, Python, Smalltalk, PHP, and yes, even Perl.

See IOCCC for true masters of making the code unreadable!

Well, that *is* hard to read, but it's nothing compared to much of the obfuscated C code I've seen.

Try that in Python!

Well, that *is* hard to read, but it's nothing compared to much of the obfuscated C code I've seen.

Try that in Python!

> The above may not be valid C++ syntax.

Can anything be? After all, C++ is more or less a superset of C

Having, in fact, read the code myself, and worked with it for three straight years, I can tell you that you are dead wrong.

These little programs do things we never, ever expected. And some things we don't even know how to control. They cheat! They take advantage of every element of the system that's possible in ways we sometimes don't even understand.

And they write their own code in ways no human ever could. I've had experiences where it takes upwards of an hour to understand a 20-instruction-long digital organism because the code is so twisted. Stuff no programmer could ever have written, not even the obfuscated code gurus.

Like any evolving organism, they'll do whatever it takes to get ahead.

* Or a few C programs at IOCCC that pack LOT of functionality into a small program?

http://www.ioccc.org

for (i = 1; i <= 10; i++) {
j = j + i;
}

for ($i = 1; $i <= 10; $i++) {
$j = $j + 1;
}

for i in range(1,10)
j = j + i

Hmm... wait a minute ... where do the ioccc people get inspired? ioccc

Companies such as Oracle and Microsoft typically sell binaries incomprehensible to humans rather than the comparatively understandable source code.

After seeing this, I think that statement is being a bit generous

I think you misunderstand what the obfuscator does. First, you must understand that all .NET assemblies are compiled to MSIL. Once that happens, anyone can use a tool, ILDASM.EXE, to view the "disassembled" assembly. You get function names, global variable names, parameter types, called framework functions, basically all the stuff you really would rather people not see.

This is where the obfuscators come in. They start renaming your functions, parameters, types, etc., but only in the MSIL that's in the assembly, not in your source code. There are other levels of obfuscation that some products support, but most of them will at least do this for you. If you don't think that's a big deal, go here to see for yourself. Staring at code that has all functions named "a1, a2, a3" and so one, combined with a similar naming scheme for other variables...well, it'll drive you to the bottle.

Many .NET developers out there are happy with the functionality of the current crop of obfuscators, and many use such programs to "encrypt" their commercial apps.

We began to compare notes: "You won't believe the code I am trying to fix". And: "Well you cannot imagine the brain damage level of the code I'm trying to fix". As well as: "It more than bad code, the author really had to try to make it this bad!"

After a few minutes we wandered back into my office where I posted a flame to net.lang.c inviting people to try and out obfuscate the UN*X source code we had just been working on.

(I had to post this typo correction :-). Thus began the tradition of putting typos in the contest rules and guidelines ... to make them more obfuscated of course! :-)

BTW: This posting was made back in the days when AT&T was the evil giant. Now, Microsoft makes AT&T look mild and kind in comparison. :-( (IMHO) ).

BTW: See the story about the ''Bill Gates'' award. :-)

OK, back to the story. We received a number of entries by EMail. When we began to receive messages from outside of the US, Larry and I decided to include International in the name. The 1st IOCCC winners were posted on 17 April 1984.

There were 4 winners in 1984.

1. <dis>honorable mention
2. 3rd place
3. 2nd place
4. 1st place

The <dis>honorable mention wished to remain anonymous. While many have asked who it was, we have continued to follow the author's wish to remain anonymous. A few years ago, we asked the author if they still wanted to remain anonymous. They said: "Yes, I want to keep my anonymity. But you can tell them that I am a well known for my connection to the C language". The only other anonymous winner occurred this year.

The 1984 winner remains one of my all time favorites.

The name used in the posting of the 1st IOCCC winner posting was International Obfuscated C Code Contest or IOCCC for short.

The posting said 1st annual, so in 1985 we held the 2nd IOCCC contest and the tradition continues as the longest running contest on the Internet.

P.S. Part of the inspiration for making the IOCCC a contest goes to the Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest.

P^2.S. See the overall README for more details.

P^3.S. See also the IOCCC FAQ.

P^4.S. Please see my apology for the late posting of the 2001 winners.

We began to compare notes: "You won't believe the code I am trying to fix". And: "Well you cannot imagine the brain damage level of the code I'm trying to fix". As well as: "It more than bad code, the author really had to try to make it this bad!"

After a few minutes we wandered back into my office where I posted a flame to net.lang.c inviting people to try and out obfuscate the UN*X source code we had just been working on.

(I had to post this typo correction :-). Thus began the tradition of putting typos in the contest rules and guidelines ... to make them more obfuscated of course! :-)

BTW: This posting was made back in the days when AT&T was the evil giant. Now, Microsoft makes AT&T look mild and kind in comparison. :-( (IMHO) ).

BTW: See the story about the ''Bill Gates'' award. :-)

OK, back to the story. We received a number of entries by EMail. When we began to receive messages from outside of the US, Larry and I decided to include International in the name. The 1st IOCCC winners were posted on 17 April 1984.

There were 4 winners in 1984.

1. <dis>honorable mention
2. 3rd place
3. 2nd place
4. 1st place

The <dis>honorable mention wished to remain anonymous. While many have asked who it was, we have continued to follow the author's wish to remain anonymous. A few years ago, we asked the author if they still wanted to remain anonymous. They said: "Yes, I want to keep my anonymity. But you can tell them that I am a well known for my connection to the C language". The only other anonymous winner occurred this year.

The 1984 winner remains one of my all time favorites.

The name used in the posting of the 1st IOCCC winner posting was International Obfuscated C Code Contest or IOCCC for short.

The posting said 1st annual, so in 1985 we held the 2nd IOCCC contest and the tradition continues as the longest running contest on the Internet.

P.S. Part of the inspiration for making the IOCCC a contest goes to the Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest.

P^2.S. See the overall README for more details.

P^3.S. See also the IOCCC FAQ.

P^4.S. Please see my apology for the late posting of the 2001 winners.

We began to compare notes: "You won't believe the code I am trying to fix". And: "Well you cannot imagine the brain damage level of the code I'm trying to fix". As well as: "It more than bad code, the author really had to try to make it this bad!"

After a few minutes we wandered back into my office where I posted a flame to net.lang.c inviting people to try and out obfuscate the UN*X source code we had just been working on.

(I had to post this typo correction :-). Thus began the tradition of putting typos in the contest rules and guidelines ... to make them more obfuscated of course! :-)

BTW: This posting was made back in the days when AT&T was the evil giant. Now, Microsoft makes AT&T look mild and kind in comparison. :-( (IMHO) ).

BTW: See the story about the ''Bill Gates'' award. :-)

OK, back to the story. We received a number of entries by EMail. When we began to receive messages from outside of the US, Larry and I decided to include International in the name. The 1st IOCCC winners were posted on 17 April 1984.

There were 4 winners in 1984.

1. <dis>honorable mention
2. 3rd place
3. 2nd place
4. 1st place

The <dis>honorable mention wished to remain anonymous. While many have asked who it was, we have continued to follow the author's wish to remain anonymous. A few years ago, we asked the author if they still wanted to remain anonymous. They said: "Yes, I want to keep my anonymity. But you can tell them that I am a well known for my connection to the C language". The only other anonymous winner occurred this year.

The 1984 winner remains one of my all time favorites.

The name used in the posting of the 1st IOCCC winner posting was International Obfuscated C Code Contest or IOCCC for short.

The posting said 1st annual, so in 1985 we held the 2nd IOCCC contest and the tradition continues as the longest running contest on the Internet.

P.S. Part of the inspiration for making the IOCCC a contest goes to the Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest.

P^2.S. See the overall README for more details.

P^3.S. See also the IOCCC FAQ.

P^4.S. Please see my apology for the late posting of the 2001 winners.

We began to compare notes: "You won't believe the code I am trying to fix". And: "Well you cannot imagine the brain damage level of the code I'm trying to fix". As well as: "It more than bad code, the author really had to try to make it this bad!"

After a few minutes we wandered back into my office where I posted a flame to net.lang.c inviting people to try and out obfuscate the UN*X source code we had just been working on.

(I had to post this typo correction :-). Thus began the tradition of putting typos in the contest rules and guidelines ... to make them more obfuscated of course! :-)

BTW: This posting was made back in the days when AT&T was the evil giant. Now, Microsoft makes AT&T look mild and kind in comparison. :-( (IMHO) ).

BTW: See the story about the ''Bill Gates'' award. :-)

OK, back to the story. We received a number of entries by EMail. When we began to receive messages from outside of the US, Larry and I decided to include International in the name. The 1st IOCCC winners were posted on 17 April 1984.

There were 4 winners in 1984.

1. <dis>honorable mention
2. 3rd place
3. 2nd place
4. 1st place

The <dis>honorable mention wished to remain anonymous. While many have asked who it was, we have continued to follow the author's wish to remain anonymous. A few years ago, we asked the author if they still wanted to remain anonymous. They said: "Yes, I want to keep my anonymity. But you can tell them that I am a well known for my connection to the C language". The only other anonymous winner occurred this year.

The 1984 winner remains one of my all time favorites.

The name used in the posting of the 1st IOCCC winner posting was International Obfuscated C Code Contest or IOCCC for short.

The posting said 1st annual, so in 1985 we held the 2nd IOCCC contest and the tradition continues as the longest running contest on the Internet.

P.S. Part of the inspiration for making the IOCCC a contest goes to the Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest.

P^2.S. See the overall README for more details.

P^3.S. See also the IOCCC FAQ.

P^4.S. Please see my apology for the late posting of the 2001 winners.

We began to compare notes: "You won't believe the code I am trying to fix". And: "Well you cannot imagine the brain damage level of the code I'm trying to fix". As well as: "It more than bad code, the author really had to try to make it this bad!"

After a few minutes we wandered back into my office where I posted a flame to net.lang.c inviting people to try and out obfuscate the UN*X source code we had just been working on.

(I had to post this typo correction :-). Thus began the tradition of putting typos in the contest rules and guidelines ... to make them more obfuscated of course! :-)

BTW: This posting was made back in the days when AT&T was the evil giant. Now, Microsoft makes AT&T look mild and kind in comparison. :-( (IMHO) ).

BTW: See the story about the ''Bill Gates'' award. :-)

OK, back to the story. We received a number of entries by EMail. When we began to receive messages from outside of the US, Larry and I decided to include International in the name. The 1st IOCCC winners were posted on 17 April 1984.

There were 4 winners in 1984.

1. <dis>honorable mention
2. 3rd place
3. 2nd place
4. 1st place

The <dis>honorable mention wished to remain anonymous. While many have asked who it was, we have continued to follow the author's wish to remain anonymous. A few years ago, we asked the author if they still wanted to remain anonymous. They said: "Yes, I want to keep my anonymity. But you can tell them that I am a well known for my connection to the C language". The only other anonymous winner occurred this year.

The 1984 winner remains one of my all time favorites.

The name used in the posting of the 1st IOCCC winner posting was International Obfuscated C Code Contest or IOCCC for short.

The posting said 1st annual, so in 1985 we held the 2nd IOCCC contest and the tradition continues as the longest running contest on the Internet.

P.S. Part of the inspiration for making the IOCCC a contest goes to the Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest.

P^2.S. See the overall README for more details.

P^3.S. See also the IOCCC FAQ.

P^4.S. Please see my apology for the late posting of the 2001 winners.

But have you seen 2001's 'Best of Show' entry?

Another good one was jar.

But, Larry Wall's third entry was pretty good too.

Another good one was jar.

But, Larry Wall's third entry was pretty good too.

My all-time favorite IOCCC winner has been savastio.

It's been up on my cube wall for a while. If anyone complains about my code here at work I threaten them to code like it.

Always works!

• Asia
  
• www.tw.ioccc.org
  - Hsin-Chu, Taiwan (24 48' N 120 59' E)

• Australia and other Pacific
• www.au.ioccc.org
  - Sydney, Australia (34 0' S 151 0' E)
  

• Europe
  
• www.de.ioccc.org
  - Humburg, Germany (53 33' N 10 2' E)
  
• www.es.ioccc.org
  - Madrid, Spain (40 25' N 3 41' W)
  
• www.gr.ioccc.org
  - Athens, Greece (38 00' N 23 44' E)
  

• Extraterrestrial
  
  SETI is looking for some sites :-)

• North America
• www0.us.ioccc.org
  - Sunnyvale California, US (37 22' N 122 02' W)
• www1.us.ioccc.org
  - Saint Paul, Minnesota US (44 57' N 93 06' W)

• South America
  none
  

We are looking for more mirrors.
Do you want to mirror the IOCCC web site?

• Asia
  
• www.tw.ioccc.org
  - Hsin-Chu, Taiwan (24 48' N 120 59' E)

• Australia and other Pacific
• www.au.ioccc.org
  - Sydney, Australia (34 0' S 151 0' E)
  

• Europe
  
• www.de.ioccc.org
  - Humburg, Germany (53 33' N 10 2' E)
  
• www.es.ioccc.org
  - Madrid, Spain (40 25' N 3 41' W)
  
• www.gr.ioccc.org
  - Athens, Greece (38 00' N 23 44' E)
  

• Extraterrestrial
  
  SETI is looking for some sites :-)

• North America
• www0.us.ioccc.org
  - Sunnyvale California, US (37 22' N 122 02' W)
• www1.us.ioccc.org
  - Saint Paul, Minnesota US (44 57' N 93 06' W)

• South America
  none
  

We are looking for more mirrors.
Do you want to mirror the IOCCC web site?

• Asia
  
• www.tw.ioccc.org
  - Hsin-Chu, Taiwan (24 48' N 120 59' E)

• Australia and other Pacific
• www.au.ioccc.org
  - Sydney, Australia (34 0' S 151 0' E)
  

• Europe
  
• www.de.ioccc.org
  - Humburg, Germany (53 33' N 10 2' E)
  
• www.es.ioccc.org
  - Madrid, Spain (40 25' N 3 41' W)
  
• www.gr.ioccc.org
  - Athens, Greece (38 00' N 23 44' E)
  

• Extraterrestrial
  
  SETI is looking for some sites :-)

• North America
• www0.us.ioccc.org
  - Sunnyvale California, US (37 22' N 122 02' W)
• www1.us.ioccc.org
  - Saint Paul, Minnesota US (44 57' N 93 06' W)

• South America
  none
  

We are looking for more mirrors.
Do you want to mirror the IOCCC web site?

• Asia
  
• www.tw.ioccc.org
  - Hsin-Chu, Taiwan (24 48' N 120 59' E)

• Australia and other Pacific
• www.au.ioccc.org
  - Sydney, Australia (34 0' S 151 0' E)
  

• Europe
  
• www.de.ioccc.org
  - Humburg, Germany (53 33' N 10 2' E)
  
• www.es.ioccc.org
  - Madrid, Spain (40 25' N 3 41' W)
  
• www.gr.ioccc.org
  - Athens, Greece (38 00' N 23 44' E)
  

• Extraterrestrial
  
  SETI is looking for some sites :-)

• North America
• www0.us.ioccc.org
  - Sunnyvale California, US (37 22' N 122 02' W)
• www1.us.ioccc.org
  - Saint Paul, Minnesota US (44 57' N 93 06' W)

• South America
  none
  

We are looking for more mirrors.
Do you want to mirror the IOCCC web site?

• Asia
  
• www.tw.ioccc.org
  - Hsin-Chu, Taiwan (24 48' N 120 59' E)

• Australia and other Pacific
• www.au.ioccc.org
  - Sydney, Australia (34 0' S 151 0' E)
  

• Europe
  
• www.de.ioccc.org
  - Humburg, Germany (53 33' N 10 2' E)
  
• www.es.ioccc.org
  - Madrid, Spain (40 25' N 3 41' W)
  
• www.gr.ioccc.org
  - Athens, Greece (38 00' N 23 44' E)
  

• Extraterrestrial
  
  SETI is looking for some sites :-)

• North America
• www0.us.ioccc.org
  - Sunnyvale California, US (37 22' N 122 02' W)
• www1.us.ioccc.org
  - Saint Paul, Minnesota US (44 57' N 93 06' W)

• South America
  none
  

We are looking for more mirrors.
Do you want to mirror the IOCCC web site?

• Asia
  
• www.tw.ioccc.org
  - Hsin-Chu, Taiwan (24 48' N 120 59' E)

• Australia and other Pacific
• www.au.ioccc.org
  - Sydney, Australia (34 0' S 151 0' E)
  

• Europe
  
• www.de.ioccc.org
  - Humburg, Germany (53 33' N 10 2' E)
  
• www.es.ioccc.org
  - Madrid, Spain (40 25' N 3 41' W)
  
• www.gr.ioccc.org
  - Athens, Greece (38 00' N 23 44' E)
  

• Extraterrestrial
  
  SETI is looking for some sites :-)

• North America
• www0.us.ioccc.org
  - Sunnyvale California, US (37 22' N 122 02' W)
• www1.us.ioccc.org
  - Saint Paul, Minnesota US (44 57' N 93 06' W)

• South America
  none
  

We are looking for more mirrors.
Do you want to mirror the IOCCC web site?

• Asia
  
• www.tw.ioccc.org
  - Hsin-Chu, Taiwan (24 48' N 120 59' E)

• Australia and other Pacific
• www.au.ioccc.org
  - Sydney, Australia (34 0' S 151 0' E)
  

• Europe
  
• www.de.ioccc.org
  - Humburg, Germany (53 33' N 10 2' E)
  
• www.es.ioccc.org
  - Madrid, Spain (40 25' N 3 41' W)
  
• www.gr.ioccc.org
  - Athens, Greece (38 00' N 23 44' E)
  

• Extraterrestrial
  
  SETI is looking for some sites :-)

• North America
• www0.us.ioccc.org
  - Sunnyvale California, US (37 22' N 122 02' W)
• www1.us.ioccc.org
  - Saint Paul, Minnesota US (44 57' N 93 06' W)

• South America
  none
  

We are looking for more mirrors.
Do you want to mirror the IOCCC web site?

#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
double l;main(_,o,O){return putchar((_--+22&&_+44&&main(_,-43,_),_&&o)?(main(- 43,++o,O),((l=(o+21)/sqrt(3-O*22-O*O),l*l<4&&(fabs (((time(0)-607728)%2551443)/405859.-4.7+acos(l/2)) <1.57))[" #"])):10);}

#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>
double l;main(_,o,O){return putchar((_--+22&&_+44&&main(_,-43,_),_&&o)?(main(- 43,++o,O),((l=(o+21)/sqrt(3-O*22-O*O),l*l<4&&(fabs (((time(0)-607728)%2551443)/405859.-4.7+acos(l/2)) <1.57))[" #"])):10);}

You may remember this great C poem (hint here) from IOCCC. It compiles, produces topic related output, and even makes lint say some funny stuff about it.

You may remember this great C poem (hint here) from IOCCC. It compiles, produces topic related output, and even makes lint say some funny stuff about it.

You may remember this great C poem (hint here) from IOCCC. It compiles, produces topic related output, and even makes lint say some funny stuff about it.

Some user configuration is required, of course.

Lots of "barrier pushing" code can be found in obfuscation contests. Check out the Obfuscated C contest or the Obfuscated Perl contest. For similar feats on the web, check out The 5k (which recently featured a lightweight chess entry).

I saw this in one of the first

International Obfuscated C Code Contests.

One of my favorite bits of code from the ioccc is one that will read and write morse. Here it is for your compiling pleasure:

#include
#include

main()
{
char*O,l[999]="'`acgo\177~|xp .-\0R^8)NJ6%K4O+A2M(*0ID57$3G1FBL";
while(O=fgets (l+45,954,stdin)){
*l=O[strlen(O)[O-1]=0,strspn(O ,l+11)];
while(*O)switch((*l&&isalnum(*O))-!*l){
case-1:{char*I=(O+=strspn(O,l+12)+1)-2,O=34;
while(*I&3&&(O=(O-1661)*32];
while(putchar(45+*l%2),(*l=*l+32>>1)>35);
case 0: putchar((++O,32));}
putchar(10);}
}

My first "art" release (knocked up after I finished my work on X-COM Apocalypse) was THROB, which was a purely visual experience, and did not include the source as part of the "experience".

My second "art" release, described on an Italian Linux site as "deliciously incompressible"
was created for the International Obfuscated C Code Contest 2000 in collaboration with a friend, and did get some recognition. It is "THADGAVIN, and it won the "Most Portable Output" award. It was also featured on a the French alternative art scene website Téléférique, and discussed on K5 in that context.

As for the stuff on display here, I find it uninspired artistically, and unimpressive technically. There is very little "art" to the source code, and very little original about the output. I suspect that they got to be shown in a reputable gallery purely on the basis that they are "in". Trendy art students, part of the art scene.

I am sure most of you have seen this but this is some of the most clear codeI have ever seen.

Your definition of "quick hack" seems to be questionable. I've cranked out quick hacks in every language I've ever used (C, C++, Perl, Pascal, CLIPS, numerous line-oriented scripting languages, LISP, etc.) It's always possible, and downright good. What's bad is writing code for any reason which others cannot understand and manage. If you do so in Perl, it's just as bad as doing so in Java, Python, C or COBOL.

Every language can be used to write obfuscated code. The question is, do you write obfuscated code for fun and when appropriate, or do you do it because you cannot do otherwise? If you cannot do otherwise, get out of the kitchen. If you can, do... in Perl or whatever langauge suits the job at hand.

Perl simply suits more jobs than most languages because of its flexibility, from complex data management (yes, of which its heralded capacity for text processing is a minor and rather unimpressive aspect) to elegant implementations of such high-level constructs as closures to the grace with which it does what you probably wanted in the first place by default, but always offers you the option to do otherwise.

Your comments make it pretty clear that you either do not know Perl, or you do not know it well. This is not shocking. Most people "know Perl" because they've seen some overglorified mailroom clerk's attempt at text processing written in it. The fact that Perl lends itself to being used by low-end programmers does not mean that that is the only domain in which it functions. If it were, I would have moved on long ago.

With This code

code to music rendering on obfuscated code. Mmmmm...........

One line, eh? So, I take it the government agency responsible is a big fan of the IOCCC?

Theres only one True tetris in my eyes, the 1989 IOCCC Best Game winner, A true classic.

of course, it has been cleaned up and improved, and is now included as tetris-bsd in the BSD games collection.

To move on to languages that learnt from perl, that improved on it, that don't have to drag around a syntax and culture that values neat tricks and trying to guess what the programmer really meant over providing the needed building blocks and letting you build code that does what you say, not what it thinks it heard you say.

You're not that familiar with Perl culture, are you? Providing needed building blocks? We've got CPAN, a frighteningly large library of building blocks.

Sure, Perl values neat tricks. So do C hackers. Sure, sometimes the tricks are strictly for entertainment value. What's the harm (assuming you don't do anything foolish like using it in production code)? Sometimes a little trick will get a throwaway tool written and used more quickly.

As for the syntax, that's exactly what Larry is working on right now. The language has become a bit crufty, Perl 6 will try to clean out the cruft. I have no idea how well it will work, that's to be seen.

Or even, dare I say it, to move on to languages outside the perl family for some programming and choose the right tool for the job for a change.

Really out of the Perl culture loop, I see. Perl is all about using the right tool for the job. Part of Perl's strength is as a glue language: use whatever tool best fits a particular job, but when you've run into several tools, Perl makes it easy to glue them together. Perl has many ways to call over programs and process their output. Perl can call libraries written in other languages. Perl can be embedded into other languages. Perl tries its hardest to play nice with everyone else. In almost every case, you could provide a 100% Perl solution, but the Perl culture values the right tool for the right job, so it makes sense to make using other tools easy.

Sometimes you have a problem where Perl has nothing to add to a particular solution. The true Perl spirit is to leave Perl out.

True Perl hackers value working solutions over using their favorite tool.

Perl was great, it introduced many people to programming, just like COBOL did. But now it's time to move on.

COBOL didn't adapt to any significant extent. It was largely limited to its roots. Perl adapts. Perl has done as well as it has because it's a powerful and flexible language. Perl looks daunting because of its size, people miss that Perl is best learned like a human language, slowly and over time. Perl, like a human language, has adapted to changing times, picked up good ideas, and generally stayed fluid. When Perl was originally created, the web didn't exist, yet Perl proved to be an exception language for all sorts of web work. Why? Because Perl had lots of powerful primatives upon which was quickly built libraries to support common tasks.

It could be worse. What would happen if Larry Wall decided this type of thing was a "good thing[tm]"?

Remember he has only won IOCCC twice so far.

did you come up with by yourself or did you rip it from ioccc?

#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
printf("Hello, World.");
return 0;
}

because that will have similar code to other students...No, instead you must look to the code of great IOCCC winners for your homework projects...

#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
printf("Hello, World.");
return 0;
}

because that will have similar code to other students...No, instead you must look to the code of great IOCCC winners for your homework projects...