Slashdot Mirror
Simpler "Hello World" Demonstrated In C
An anonymous reader writes "Wondering where all that bloat comes from, causing even the classic 'Hello world' to weigh in at 11 KB? An MIT programmer decided to make a Linux C program so simple, she could explain every byte of the assembly. She found that gcc was including libc even when you don't ask for it. The blog shows how to compile a much simpler 'Hello world,' using no libraries at all. This takes me back to the days of programming bare-metal on DOS!"
Interesting, but she does sort of sidestep the whole 'Hello World!' part of a hello world program.
FYI, Steve Jobs came up with the idea for the "Hello World" app.
He also holds the design patent on the touch wheel interface for it.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
45 bytes, huh? I can do it in....
#!/bin/sh
exit 42
18 bytes and it's portable across all Unices. Maybe the assembler version is faster, though?
Thank God we have finally crossed this hurdle. The baffling complexity of helloworld.c is no longer an obstacle to world domination.
I think we can now finally say once and for all that 2010 will be the year of Linux on the desktop.
No Steve Jobs designed "iHello World", which is actually one byte larger than the standard hello world app, but he's litigating against everyone who creates "Hello World" since 100% of it is quite obviously a subset of "iHello World".
I drink to make other people interesting!
You're right! I'm going to throw my laptop out the windows right now! Reading slashdot will be so much more fun on a computer smaller than a sunflower seed.
"A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
Guy reminds me of an old joke.
What's the difference between a bitch and a whore?
A whore fucks everyone. A bitch fucks everyone but you.
The fact that people would even still use C at all for anything anywhere ever shocks me.
I started writing device drivers in Ruby, and have never looked back.
In order to get Ruby to run on my system, I run it in an interpreter. The interpreter is written in Java, which is a much faster language and therefore more suitable as an interpreter.
The JVM on my system is written in C#. I know that C# is comparable to Java in terms of efficiency, but since this is a Windows machine, I figure it's "closer to the metal."
The implementation of the .NET framework on my computer (and the Windows operating system itself) is written in Ruby. Since I already have a Ruby interpreter on my system, this presents no problems.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
My God, are you saying that people should use the right tools and techniques for the job at hand, rather than applying the same limited ones to every problem they come across?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I have a suggestion: If you write your JVM in Visual Basic instead of C#, it'll be portable, since most old microcomputers included BASIC in ROM. And, of course, .NET already brings Visual Basic.NET!
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost