My name is Todd Nathan, and it is with great pleasure
to annouce the opening of 2005 IORCC. The Official
International Obfuscated Ruby Code Contest Rules and
FAQ are now online. Please consider entering your
most obfuscated Ruby program, or becoming a judge.
it is with great pleasure to annouce the opening of 2005 IORCC.
1st price: "Advanced Obfuscation: Perl for Ruby Programmers"
2nd price: "More Awkward Obfuscation: AWK for Ruby Programmers"
3rd price: "Obfuscation by Parenthesis: Lisp for Ruby Programmers"
4th price: "How to shoot yourself in the foot"
An ORCC doesn't seem to be a good idea. I already hear them saying "See
this? They keep on saying that Ruby code is much cleaner than Perl code.
Don't believe their lies."
you're just annoyed cus you can't write crap code!
well i can! so let me at it! yay! yay me! etc. oh.
erm. ummm. la la la
···
On Feb 22, 2005, at 10:37 PM, Josef 'Jupp' Schugt wrote:
An ORCC doesn't seem to be a good idea. I already hear them saying "See
this? They keep on saying that Ruby code is much cleaner than Perl code.
Don't believe their lies."
In message "Re: ANN: 2005 International Obfuscated Ruby Code Contest (IORCC)" on Wed, 23 Feb 2005 06:37:50 +0900, Josef 'Jupp' Schugt <jupp@gmx.de> writes:
An ORCC doesn't seem to be a good idea. I already hear them saying "See
this? They keep on saying that Ruby code is much cleaner than Perl code.
Don't believe their lies."
Well, it is a good chance to prove them we can write pretty unreadable
code as well as readable code.
it is with great pleasure to annouce the opening of 2005 IORCC.
1st price: "Advanced Obfuscation: Perl for Ruby Programmers"
2nd price: "More Awkward Obfuscation: AWK for Ruby Programmers"
3rd price: "Obfuscation by Parenthesis: Lisp for Ruby Programmers"
4th price: "How to shoot yourself in the foot"
An ORCC doesn't seem to be a good idea. I already hear them saying "See
this? They keep on saying that Ruby code is much cleaner than Perl code.
Don't believe their lies."
Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
Obfuscated codes promote exactly two things, not less, not more:
1, the flexibility of the target language
2, the talent and creativity of the author
I can only look up to those who write such high quality codes It does not mean that they are
not capable to write clean, well-structured ones, on the contrary, most of the times it shows their
deep understanding of both "sides".
For another point, any idea which puts ruby in the spotlight is more than welcomed, I think, for
what ruby needs now more than anything else is popularity... and fun around it, like this obfuscated
contest or the ruby quiz is exactly the thing for it - improving morale, stirring up any still water, etc.
it is with great pleasure to annouce the opening of 2005 IORCC.
1st price: "Advanced Obfuscation: Perl for Ruby Programmers"
2nd price: "More Awkward Obfuscation: AWK for Ruby Programmers"
3rd price: "Obfuscation by Parenthesis: Lisp for Ruby Programmers"
4th price: "How to shoot yourself in the foot"
An ORCC doesn't seem to be a good idea. I already hear them saying "See
this? They keep on saying that Ruby code is much cleaner than Perl code.
Don't believe their lies."
I wonder how the perl community reacted on books like "Object-oriented
Perl" by Conway...
Seriously, a deobfuscation contest of the winners is planned, too.
Quoting matz@ruby-lang.org, on Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 08:07:49AM +0900:
Hi,
>An ORCC doesn't seem to be a good idea. I already hear them saying "See
>this? They keep on saying that Ruby code is much cleaner than Perl code.
>Don't believe their lies."
Powerful languages allow obfuscation. Weak languages only allow garbage
code.
Anybody looking at the code in an obfuscated coding contest as an
example of how unreadable a language is severely misses the point.
Sam
···
In message "Re: ANN: 2005 International Obfuscated Ruby Code Contest (IORCC)" > on Wed, 23 Feb 2005 06:37:50 +0900, Josef 'Jupp' Schugt <jupp@gmx.de> writes:
In message "Re: ANN: 2005 International Obfuscated Ruby Code Contest (IORCC)" > on Wed, 23 Feb 2005 06:37:50 +0900, Josef 'Jupp' Schugt <jupp@gmx.de> writes:
>An ORCC doesn't seem to be a good idea. I already hear them saying "See
>this? They keep on saying that Ruby code is much cleaner than Perl code.
>Don't believe their lies."
Well, it is a good chance to prove them we can write pretty unreadable
code as well as readable code.
Is that "pretty" as in "somewhat", or "pretty" as in "nice-looking"?
An ORCC doesn't seem to be a good idea. I already hear them saying "See
this? They keep on saying that Ruby code is much cleaner than Perl code.
Don't believe their lies."
> you're just annoyed cus you can't write crap code!
It only seems more natural to use C for that. The following is a quick and dirty hack to compute n! I wrote yesterday - without having obfuscation in mind. It's simply my way of writing C. Blame it on my tutorial - K&R.
#include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h>
int main(int argc,char*argv){
unsigned long long i,fac;
for(i=fac=atoi(argv[1]);i>2;fac*=(--i));
return(printf("%ll\n",fac)==1);
}
To me Ruby is a tool for elegant solutions:
ruby -e 'puts (1..10).inject{|f,x| f*x}'
Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
···
On Feb 22, 2005, at 10:37 PM, Josef 'Jupp' Schugt wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:23:08 +0900, David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
Hi --
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In message "Re: ANN: 2005 International Obfuscated Ruby Code Contest (IORCC)" > > on Wed, 23 Feb 2005 06:37:50 +0900, Josef 'Jupp' Schugt <jupp@gmx.de> writes:
>
> >An ORCC doesn't seem to be a good idea. I already hear them saying "See
> >this? They keep on saying that Ruby code is much cleaner than Perl code.
> >Don't believe their lies."
>
> Well, it is a good chance to prove them we can write pretty unreadable
> code as well as readable code.
Is that "pretty" as in "somewhat", or "pretty" as in "nice-looking"?
In message "Re: ANN: 2005 International Obfuscated Ruby Code Contest (IORCC)" on Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:23:08 +0900, "David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> writes:
Well, it is a good chance to prove them we can write pretty unreadable
code as well as readable code.
Is that "pretty" as in "somewhat", or "pretty" as in "nice-looking"?
#include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h>
int main(int argc,char*argv){
unsigned long long i,fac;
for(i=fac=atoi(argv[1]);i>2;fac*=(--i));
return(printf("%ll\n",fac)==1);
}
dunno why anyone would find that wierd...
you should see some of my c/c++ code with
method-template/class-template/macros mixes
it makes most c++ coders ask for explanations...
To me Ruby is a tool for elegant solutions:
i think the point here is "to me"
to me ruby is a tool for having fun
while making useful stuff
Alex
···
On Feb 24, 2005, at 11:30 PM, Josef 'Jupp' Schugt wrote: