Death Of The Obfuscated C Code Contest? 19
slashdot-me asks: "The International Obfuscated C Code Contest that we all know and love seems to be stalled. The judging phase of the contest began six months ago in April. Since then all the judges except Leonid Broukis have abandoned the project.
Has this 16-year-old programming tradition died?"
Yes indeed (Score:2)
realization dawns (Score:3)
my late entry (Score:1)
#include
int a=10000,b,c=2800,d,e,f[2801],g;
void main(){
for(;b-c;)
f[b++]=a/5;
for(;d=0,g=c*2;c-=14,printf("%.4d",e+d/a),e=d%a)
}
Think I could have be a contender?
-----
If my facts are wrong then tell me. I don't mind.
Re:my late entry (Score:1)
Reasons: first of all, when you tried to include stdio.h, slashdot seems to have filtered out the file name, thinking it was supposed to be an unapproved HTML tag.
Secondly, main() needs return type int, at least if you're compiling on gcc.
There didn't seem to be a point... (Score:2)
Perl (Score:1)
Or Even better.... Perl Poetry. [itknowledge.com]
Re:my late entry (Score:1)
Obfuscated C is either a)redundant b)C++ or c)MS Visual C
Re:my late entry (Score:1)
Re:my late entry (Score:1)
Re:my late entry (Score:1)
Re:my late entry (Score:1)
In C, not declaring a return type for a function is the same (but more clear) as declaring it as an int; that's not the problem. The problem is that you effectively have to return something, which doesn't happen here, otherwise it's not legal C. But it's quite possible gcc will just issue a warning and then happily continues to compile. I don't remember if gcc issues a warning or an error, I haven't tried to forget the return lately.
Re:realization dawns (Score:3)
*** Okay, a warning. This is an opinion some may find distateful. I respect that. Its my opinion. You are free to differ with it ***
Some still call it programming...
Others learned the lesson.. and went away to write less obfuscated languages.
The problem was never the coders... the best coders write clean and readbale code in anything up to and including assembler.
The problem was that C made it WORK to write such code (much as assembler does) and so the lazier or less disciplined coders didn't write their code that way.
Re:my late entry (Score:1)
Re:my late entry (Score:1)
Not in C9X. It's one of the changes.
-Jordan Henderson
Re:my late entry (Score:1)
On a Windoze NT system, if you declare a variable but don't initialize it, it's often set to 0xAAAAAAAA (in the case of an int - yes, 32 bits, at least on WinNT). Or -1431655766 if you prefer.
But if you declare it globally, it's initialized to zero.
Re:Couldn't be Obfuscated Apathy, could it? (Score:1)
http://www.ioccc.org/years.html#1998
http://www.ioccc.org/1998/banks.c
http://www.ioccc.org/1998/banks.hint
Last time I tried, it wouldn't compile, but I guess you can't expect too much portability from something like this.
Your code does not work. (Score:1)
Also, you didn't write this code.
Re:Your code does not work. (Score:1)
Rumors of IOCCC death may have been premature (Score:1)