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!"
*sigh*
Been there done that... on the PDP-11 in 1979.
Interesting, but she does sort of sidestep the whole 'Hello World!' part of a hello world program.
Adding a static 11k or so is insignificant for any program which actually does anything useful.
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
http://web.archive.org/web/19991128041233/http://muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html
November 1999. Slow news day much?
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Ok, this is wicked great in theory. Our programs have become bloated. We do have them taking up too much RAM, HD space, and CPU time. But after reading through this in-depth analysis I have to wonder if it's all worth it.
If we're willing to leave behind all pretenses of portability, we can make our program exit without having to link with anything else. First, though, we need to know how to make a system call under Linux.
Or I can just write it the old way, making the file size larger and not have to concern myself with portability and how to make system calls under Linux. After all that's what the whole point of this all was right?
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?
Since when does a Hello World program not actually output anything?
I think you missed the point of the article.
The author is trying to highlight that amount of bloat in modern programs is so rampant that even "Hello World" is excessively over sized for what it accomplishes. How can we as programmers expect fast, efficient, lightweight code when our compiler (even ones as popular as gcc) are bloating the program without being asked to?
Why doesn't it fit in TFS?
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
As to the point of this... we recently had a story about how computers had gotten "too big to understand".
And here we have a program, 45 bytes long, for which every single byte has a well-explained purpose. It's getting back to the bare metal and that's what makes it interesting. =)
Awhile back I read another similar article. In the article the smallest PE created is a bit larger (97 bytes), but a little more standards compliant. More interestingly, however, the author crafts a program that downloads and executes another program in only 133 bytes.
Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
Mainframers have been using this most simple of all utilities for decades - literally. The Wikipedia entry on it has a good write-up about this (literal) do-nothing program. It's whole purpose is to provide a mechanisim to to exploit the various functions contained in JCL to create, delete, and otherwise manipulate datasets on mainframes.
The wikipedia entry is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEFBR14
Ken
At the end, the code was assembler, and the compiler wasn't even called - just the linker. I can't say for sure where a C program ends and an assembler program begins, but I'm fairly certain that the last few iterations are assembler, based on the "let's do away with the compiler" suggestion.
Also, "Hello World" programs have to, you know, actually display the message "Hello World" - this is a program that isn't written in C, and doesn't write "Hello World" - care to revisit the title of this entry?
Ken
I had a laptop that was really short on memory back in 1996 or so. I liked having the six virtual consoles, but rarely used them, so I wrote a program that would wait for you to press enter, then exec the regular login program. It copied the executable onto the same page as the stack and had no globals, so at run time, it used exactly one page of RAM. I used the same technique as the author here of calling syscalls directly instead of using libc.
I understand the point of the article, and everything else mentioned here. I just think that the amount of time spent eliminating 11k from a program in this case is irrelevant because any real application is going to need libc. It's not like she needed to strip it out so it would fit inside a tiny corner of an embedded processor - she's probably running it on a PC with anywhere from 1GB - 4GB of RAM.
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.
The whole point was learning ELF structure and why things were they way they were. Didn't you ever wonder why a "hello world" program took over 4000 bytes on a modern computer, when in 1980 a Commodore VIC-20 managed to play games in less than 4K of available memory? This wasn't a waste of time.
OK, when I first read this, I thought to myself, "now why in the hell would anyone care to do this?"
Then it dawned on me. One stoned programmer said to another....Yeah, that's probably how it went down. Both now, and back in 1979, when you could still smoke in the Data Center...
But my stupid build process that generates the bloated Hello World is much more maintainable. Now get off my lawn.
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
"An 11k app is not going to make me, or my computer, say 'Good Bye World'"
It is if your computer is a 38-cent Atmel AVR tiny 10, which only has enough space for 512 12-bit instruction words. This chip is about half the size of a sunflower seed, but is faster, and, in several ways, more powerful, than the original $5000 IBM PC from 1981.
Get away from the idea of Gigahertz desktops and $1000 laptops and join the real computer revolution!
For me, if it costs more that $5, it's not a computer that I take seriously. It's just a 20th-century digital processing appliance.
Shouldn't the linker remove unreferenced functions?
I've had this problem with gcc for a while, with C++ code. I was writing some embedded code, and I wanted to use some simple C++. Just by adding a #include of one of the stream libraries. the executable grew by 200k, even though none of it was referenced. The C++ code in iostream is template-generated anyway, so even if the compiler wanted to include the code, it can't until I instantiate it.
But it really is much simpler. The reason your 'average first year comp sci student' might find it less understandable is because they dont actually understand the bloated version either. Using a high-level language doesnt reduce complexity, quite the opposite in fact, it greatly increases actual complexity. It simply makes it easier to get something done without understanding it, and thus makes it easier to kid yourself into thinking you know what you are doing, when you dont.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
This is because we are no longer linking the binaries statically (one object file for each function), but are using dynamically linked libraries. And your libc is't loaded only for your program. The same spot in ram is shared between all programs that are using it making the total ram spent for each program rather small, probably even smaller than if you would statically link the object files of the functions you need.
Patch the strip utility on Linux, send in the patch and see if it gets accepted. Then let's see a follow-up of that on Slashdot. She's taking a lot of flack here; but there's value in the work. It just needs to be applied in a more practical way.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Yeah, but the 45-byte program doesn't say "Hello World". In fact, there's no example that I can find in TFA that outputs that message or any other. So the summary is incorrect on its face. TFA doesn't show a simpler "Hello World" program; it doesn't show any sort of "Hello World" program at all.
I feel cheated, and tricked into reading an article that didn't do what was advertised.
(It's not the author's fault, of course; the author didn't claim to be writing the sort of program that the summary talked about. Though I was a bit disappointed that only the first few examples were in C. The article was almost entirely about assembly-language programs. So again, I was a bit disappointed, since I was hoping to learn something about making C programs smaller. This was done only in the first example, and it was made smaller by removing its call on write() so it didn't output anything at all. I already understood that I can make programs smaller by removing all functionality. ;-)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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!
I wasted too much time reading this one... nothing surprising about what I found in it. Step one, don't write it in C. Step two, stop linking to things that aren't needed. Step three, perform the functions contained in the library omitted manually. Step five, start cheating in the elf binary format.
The only thing interesting about it was that the article pointed out an interesting fact -- Linux will run inappropriately formatted binaries. BAD. Linux kernel people? Are you reading this? Fix it before someone figures out how to use this in making and executing more exploits.
It's just a 20th-century digital processing appliance.
Mine is a 21st-century appliance, thank you very much!
Back in the DOS days, any moderately competent programmer knew how to copy arbitrary data to screen buffer, allowing you to display text without any libraries. It's been many years, so I am probably getting this wrong, but in psuedocode it'd look something like
char*cp="Hello World";
char *addr=0xB8000000;
while(*addr++ = *cp++);
That's the C version, of course. You'd actually do it in assembly. My suspicion is that you could do it in on the order of 20 to 25 bytes, but again, it's been decades since I've done anything like that.
The cake is a pie
"At the end, the code was assembler"
But, the key point is that the user didn't generate that assembly. The user wrote a C program (granted, the program doesn't actually do any output - it just stores a string in memory, then exits). The user called the compiler to compile the program. The user then *disassembled* the object code which was created by *the compiler*. So, the assembly you see was generated (indirectly, via the objdump command), by the C compiler.
Exception: the user did create a small assembly file with the place-holder _start function. Perhaps, this example would have benefitted by the user defining the _start() function in C also, and using the compiler to compile that - not sure if that actually would have worked or not, but would have been interesting if she had tried.
One other point I'd like to make - ultimately, every C program has to have some assembly *somewhere*. When you call the printf(), printf itself either must use some assembly to interact with the operating system (in order to cause output to be sent to stdout), or printf *might* punt that off to another function, which then has some assembly inside it. The only reason you can do *any* input or output in C (or any other language for that matter) is that, at some point, somewhere, either in the compiler itself, or in a standard library, someone has provided the necessary assembly code for you.
In the case of C, the language designers decided to make the C-language pure 'logic', without any notion of input or output statements, or operating system interactioni, and do all input/output/system calls via library functions (whether you use the standard library, or a 'third-party' library [ I use the term third-party loosely here, because the 'third-party' lib might actually be provided by your compiler vendor, but it's just not the standard library]).
The fact that helloworld.c compiles to 11k has less to do with bloat than it has to do with people generally not caring about 11k. You could get rid of that 11k, but to do so, you'd have to make trade offs that either make real programs either slower or bigger, or make compilation slower. Very few people would make those trade offs in the other direction. Those that do either use special purpose compilers or (more likely) write in assembly.
The cake is a pie
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"
These days, costs of development and deployment, not runtime memory usage, are the limiting factors in software development.
http://outcampaign.org/
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.
If you're actually programming on "bare metal", you're not really using DOS, are you? After all, DOS is an operating system -- a layer between your code and the hardware.
One of the earliest processors I used had only 256 bits of RAM (Yes, that's right 256 B I T S of memory)
#hello world tiny program
.data
.text
.equ SYSCALL, 0x80
.equ SYS_EXIT, 1
.equ SYS_WRITE, 4
.equ STDOUT, 1
.section
hello:
.ascii "hello world!\n"
.section
.globl _start
_start:
movb $SYS_WRITE, %al #put write syscall in eax
movb $STDOUT, %bl #set stream to stdout
movl $hello, %ecx #give address of start of buffer to print
movb $13, %dl #how many characters of buffer to print
int $SYSCALL
movb $SYS_EXIT, %al
int $SYSCALL
The above is a tiny hello world program i wrote myself, it's worth noting that even the resulting binary is larger than it needs to be, I wound up with a 133 byte binary by moving the text string into the ELF header via hex editor, and changing the instruction data to point to the new addresses.
Kind of hard to get it smaller than that while keeping it in ELF format, considering the actual object code in the binary was something like 15 bytes with the data illegally in the header.
TFA explains it: main() isn't the true start of the program, _start is. That resides in ctrl.o, which fires off a bunch of setup stuff before calling __libc_start_main, which in turn kicks off main(), and off your program goes.
To put it as a car analogy: What she found is that turning the key to start doesn't just activate the starter, it also activates the airbag system, the traction control, and the radio too. And if all you want to do is start the engine to prove that it runs (ala Hello World!), then it's kind of silly to lug around all that extra "unnecessary" crap too.
Or something like that. Sadly i'm a better mechanic than a programmer (4yrs vs 1yr), but i'm working on fixing that. :)
Mod parent up. This is all a semantic game about where significant portions of functionality are stored (and thus counted or not). After all, back in the "pre bloatware" days, you'd have had to manage all of the complexities of machine management and I/O yourself. The assembly would have been much larger to achieve the same effect.
Yes, you can make the argument that Linux comes with screen I/O, a scheduler, memory management, etc. already, so that's just overhead, but as others have pointed out, you can say the same thing about bash. It comes everywhere and is just overhead.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
c:\ xxx>debug :001D
-a
mov dx, 100
mov cx, 000D
mov bx, 1
mov ah, 40
int 21
mov ah, 4C
int 21
-f 111 "Hello World!"
-a100
mov dx, 0111
-r cx
-n c:\ xxx\ hello.com
-w
-q
c:\ xxx>hello.com
Hello World!
c:\ xxx>dir hello.com
03/18/2011 11:29 AM 29 HELLO.COM
Try programming a micro-controller and suddenly you'll be facing hardware limits that force you to favor small unreadable code over bigger more maintainable code. There is a solution for it though... comments! Lots of them :D
Doesn't matter anyways because demand paging ensures that only the parts of libc that your program actually uses will be pulled into memory, so all the extra junk will remain on disk.
gcc for an AVR target doesn't make an 11k hello world, though.
Probably because that's an application where it matters, and a modern PC it doesn't matter at all.
Sent from my PDP-11
There are three links in the article summary. The first is to the Wikipedia entry for "Hello World"; the second is to an article about writing "Hello World" without libc; the third is to part II of the second, an examination of the ELF format and demonstrates the 45 byte program. The summary headline is rubbish. Whoever wrote it either (a); never read either article, or (b); deliberately sensationalized it by conflating the salient features of both articles, in which case they should be working for the tabloids.
Back in the early 1980s, I was doing development on MS-DOS 2.11 - the first real working version of MS-DOS that resembled Xenix more than CP/M.
I was using a combination of Lattice C and assembly language to do my day job. But I was upset about the libc bloat that Lattice C would drag into the program. Over the Christmas break, I sat down and wrote a tiny version of libc, with the 60% of the calls I actually used. Most of them were either thin wrappers on top of MS-DOS Int21 calls, assembly language implementations (the string functions), or reduced functionality (printf didn't handle strange alignments, floats or doubles), and custom startup/exit code. I also structured the library so that the linker would only link in functions that were actually used. For simple executables, I saw the on-disk file size drop from 10KB-20KB down to 400-600 bytes. Another thing that reduced on-disk file size was to create .com programs, rather than .exe programs.
I was also writing the handful of unix commands that I couldn't do without (ls, cat, cut, paste, grep, fgrep, etc). Since I was implementing dozens of Unix commands, each statically linked to libc, it was very important to reduce the over-all size of each executable. Most of the smaller trivial commands were less than 1KB in size. I think the largest was 4KB. I also had an emacs clone* that was 36KB when compiled and linked against my tiny lib.
For the longest time, I carried around a bootable MS-DOS 2.11 floppy, with my dozens of Unix commands, an emacs-like editor, Lattice C compiler, tiny libc, and some core MS-DOS programs. It allowed my to have my entire development environment on a floppy that I could stick in anyone's machine and make it usable.
* We had a source license for Mince, orphaned by Mark of the Unicorn, a tiny emacs-clone that ran on CP/M, MS-DOS, and Unix. We had enhanced it significantly.
OOP makes people lazy and gives them less of an understanding of what's actually going on.
All that OOP code you write gets translated back into something procedural, you know.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
It's funny that this always come up in conversations about bloat, because not everyone has to program for embedded code, because not everyone is programming embedded devices. It's almost like you guys are a subsubculture of programmer, to the point where many of you guys come off with the general attitude of being superior, when in fact, neither approach is superior, just different based on the situation.
/rant
Hmmz, I was hoping my post was without any judgement about what is 'better' and more '133t' coding. Sorry you think otherwise :(
Not only more maintainable, but filesystems should use 4k per sector, specially on raid's for performance stuff discussed on this post. This means that in a decently configured modern system, anything under 4k will still occupy 4k on disk.
- Human knowledge belongs to the world
Apple defines system call APIs at the top of libc ...no static linking allowed.
This annoys people who like to link things statically, and those who want to make their own libc equivalents for things like embedded language interpreters and don't want to have to figure out vtables and dynamic linking.
But it also makes everyone else who likes binary compatibility, and Mac OS X historically getting faster with every release, extremely happy, by allowing the interface between the kernel and libc to be changed, without breaking their applications.
If you statically link, you can't do that. That's great, if your OS has pretty much no real commercial application base, and you are a technical enough person to "just recompile everything from source", but it's not so good when you are talking about an OS where commercial software is very important to customers. Customers who are either non-technical, or who are technical, but think recompiling something that was working just fine before the OS update is a complete waste of time. Lump me in with these last people: I don't believe in "bit rot", I just believe in lazy engineers not maintaining their code or defining their interfaces properly.
Yeah, if you want fast LMBench results on a null system call -- which keeps changing its definition so that it can't be gamed, exactly the same way you'd game it if you were a commercial application developer needing higher performance -- static linking seems great. But practically, most modern software is either CPU bound or I/O bound. If it's CPU bound, it spends all its time in user space, not making system calls. If it's I/O bound, it spends all its time waiting for whoever is on the other end of the network to send it more bytes. Either way, null system call performance is, frankly, unimportant to almost every possible application.
So static linking, and writing your system calls at the trap/sysenter/syscall level (with no way to change them when Intel or another chip vendor introduce a "new! optimized method of making system calls!", as has already happened twice in the past) is generally a pretty useless exercise.
-- Terry
That is what I said.
That is not a question for which a single good answer can be given, other than "it depends." There are so many variables. Just how often will how many processors do extra work (that will allow you to calculate the lost electricity - it is a real and calculable cost.) RAM usage also has real costs associated, including electricity, but calculating the final price tag is far more complicated there. But the bottom line is that it is way too much work to really track down and calculate to the penny the costs of innefficient code, even in the narrowest of sense, so no one does. We just sort of guess-timate, and we work within systems that dont encourage us to account for costs that can be passed on unaccounted for, so we generally do it in that manner. That the outcome is naturally for many actors to weigh the decision purely in terms of their own personal and immediate costs and benefits (15 minutes of my time vs. small performance hit to whomever uses) without accounting at all for many less personal and less immediate effects.
And often enough that works just fine. But there are cases where it will bite you hard. Knowing which situation is which is important. How are you going to do that if you only know quick-and-cheap method without understanding the larger picture?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
/* -*- coding: utf-8-unix -*- */
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int O, char **o)
{
int l4, l0, l, I, lO[]= { 444,131131,13031,12721,17871,20202,1111,
20102,18781,666,85558,66066,2222,0 };
for(l4=0;l4<14;++l4){
for((l=l0=lO[l4])&&(l0=-7);
l>4&&(I=2-((l|l>>O)&O));l=l&O?l+(l<<O)+O:l>>I,l0+=I);{
putchar(10+l0);
}
}
return 0;
}
(founded 95,000,000 yrs ago, very space opera)
Hello (World). I am from the future. The code you have provided a link to will not run on Windows 9.
Indeed.
At 11kB each, my 1TB harddrive would only fit some 97 million programs.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
"Hello World" uses over 90% of his "iHello World" work. You would be hard pressed to make a fair use argument here. ;-)
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
It's too bad with all these things you "heard" that you didn't happen to hear that programs are written for environments other than Windows (or Linux, Mac OS, etc), and for devices other than PCs. It's unfortunate that you are so in the dark that you don't realize that there are entire industries that rely on devices that have tiny fractions of the memory and processor speed that you ignorantly assume that we all have access too. You probably have no idea how often you are affected by devices that run 100 times slower than the desktop PC you gave as an example, or also have 1,000 times less RAM. On some of these devices C is the most advanced language you can get short of writing a compiler or interpreter yourself.
Sure, pissing away storage space and waving a hand at execution efficiency is fine for some circumstances, but sometimes it's a luxury you can't afford. The world of software development is far bigger than the tiny little niche of programming you've been exposed to.
I suggest you use some "real" perspective, and reevaluate what a "real language" is.
"OOP makes people lazy and gives them less of an understanding of what's actually going on."
I've noticed that people who critise OOP rarely understand what it is and tend to think it's tied to a particular type of language. OO is a way of thinking about a problem at a higher level than functional decomposition. You can code an OO solution in whatever language you like. Done properly it leads to elegant solutions eg; many of the examples in K&R exhibit the features of OO design and they were created before the term "object orientated" was coined. I assume when K&R used function pointers as elements of a struct they "understood what's going on", right?
"All that OOP code you write gets translated back into something procedural, you know."
Perhaps that's because...you know...OOP is procedural.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
One of the earliest machines I learned programming on only had 256 bytes of memory.
You lucky bastard.
My parents could never afford such computer. I had to learn programming on a computer with only 1 bit of memory (Yes that's right: 1 B I T of memory!)
Those were the days. And you tell the kids these stories and they won't believe you...
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.
The whole point was learning ELF structure and why things were they way they were. Didn't you ever wonder why a "hello world" program took over 4000 bytes on a modern computer, when in 1980 a Commodore VIC-20 managed to play games in less than 4K of available memory? This wasn't a waste of time.
Yeah.
To put this in perspective: Guess how big the executable header is in 8-bit Commodore machines?
2 bytes. The absolute start address of the program. The computer opens up the file, reads where it's stored, and starts putting data to the memory from that point onward. Simple enough. Of course, there's none of this "relocation" and "memory protection" rubbish to worry about.
If you wanted to store program in BASIC RAM, you could write a stub BASIC program that basically just has one code line, 10 SYS<startaddr>, where <startaddr> points to the address past the end of the program in BASIC RAM. In total, this "header" is just a dozen bytes or so in tokenised BASIC. (Don't have the time today to test how small I can make it, but...)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
...besides, high-level programmers often underestimate just how big a sector embedded programming is. The $IDIOTS_PET_LANGUAGE is for a PC. Now get me more RAM and better CPU for all the devices running embedded software, that are in my sight range as I look around:
- my cell phone.
- 6 different monitors (OSD doesn't happen magically. Something remembers the settings...)
- a videoserver
- 2 cheap switches
- a regulated power supply
- a heat-controlled soldering iron
- a regular phone
- 3 PC keyboards (hey, neither PS2 nor USB protocols happen by themselves)
- 3 computer mice (optical, meaning pretty advanced image analysis)
- my hand watch
- a battery charger
- a USB hub
- a security motion sensor
- an MP3 player
- a webcam
- a multimeter
- a car alarm remote
- a pendrive.
These all were programmed either in VHDL, Asembler, or C. The phone has some J2ME code too. Think of upgrading each of these devices so much that its firmware could be rewritten in, say, Perl. Or C#.
Also, think about how much embedded programming is in every PC. Each device controller has its own firmware... my bet is any average house contains more embedded programs (in embedded devices) than PC applications on the "family PC" and stored on media.
High-level programming languages are nice and have their place, but considering embedded "a niche not worthy of attention" is a bad mistake. The proportions between amounts of server:desktop:embedded software are much closer to 1:1:1 than most "high-level" programmers are willing to admit.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
You have to explicitly enable function-level linking with gcc. Compile your source files with -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections, and then pass -gc-sections flag to ld (-Wl,-gc-sections if linking with gcc). This puts every function into its own .text.section and allows the linker to prune the ones that are not referenced. The remaining ones are coalesced into a single .text section.
Here we still program in C (I don't, but others here do) because if we wrote in something like .NET, Ruby or Python the executable would be so much bigger and the binaries wouldn't fit on the device hardware. So sometimes having something 'closer to the iron' is better.
Then again, when telling a device how to servo, string interpretation is seldom of high concern.
How about 22 bytes?
:16
C:\>debug
-a 0100
0D39:0100 MOV AH,09
0D39:0102 MOV DX,0109
0D39:0105 INT 21
0D39:0107 INT 20
0D39:0109
-e 0109 'Hello world!$'
-r cx
CX 0000
-n hello.com
-w
Writing 00016 bytes
-q
C:\>HELLO.COM
Hello world!
C:\>dir hello.com
26/08/2009 10:48 22 HELLO.COM
Why did you put it in your porn folder?
Nope! Now, hand me that pickaxe, I need to dig myself a memory upgrade.
http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Computing
I use Windows... like a two dollar wh.. why don't I just go ahead and not finish that sentence.