mirror/ioccc
1
0 Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

replace old ASCII > style with markdown code blocks

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Landon Curt Noll committed 2024-04-17 00:45:05 -07:00
1 parent 4c3649a3c1
commit e695c5cf03
45 files changed
+437 -480
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

No files matched your search

2018/burton2/README.md
+7 -5
View File
@@ -157,11 +157,13 @@ designed to allow exhaustive, hand-counted values for comparison with the tool v
These test cases were vital in debugging and regression testing, and provided a way to
determine which tool was correct when there were differences.
> A version of this tool in more clearly written C ([tac.c](tac.c))
> is presented for the Judge's consideration as a more accurate replacement for `iocccsize`.
> This obfuscated entry is derived from (and compatible with) that code,
> but due to obfuscation, has had some significant, deep changes for the contest.
> Nevertheless, the more clearly written code remains a spoiler for this entry.
```
A version of this tool in more clearly written C ([tac.c](tac.c))
is presented for the Judge's consideration as a more accurate replacement for `iocccsize`.
This obfuscated entry is derived from (and compatible with) that code,
but due to obfuscation, has had some significant, deep changes for the contest.
Nevertheless, the more clearly written code remains a spoiler for this entry.
```
NB: `iocccsize` gets a different answer from `tac` on its own
([iocccsize.c](../../2018/iocccsize.c)) source code;
2018/burton2/index.html
+5 -7
View File
@@ -255,13 +255,11 @@ whitespace surrounds English words, not necessarily C tokens, as in <code>a+=1;<
designed to allow exhaustive, hand-counted values for comparison with the tool values.
These test cases were vital in debugging and regression testing, and provided a way to
determine which tool was correct when there were differences.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A version of this tool in more clearly written C (<a href="tac.c">tac.c</a>)
is presented for the Judge’s consideration as a more accurate replacement for <code>iocccsize</code>.
This obfuscated entry is derived from (and compatible with) that code,
but due to obfuscation, has had some significant, deep changes for the contest.
Nevertheless, the more clearly written code remains a spoiler for this entry.</p>
</blockquote>
<pre><code> A version of this tool in more clearly written C ([tac.c](tac.c))
is presented for the Judge&#39;s consideration as a more accurate replacement for `iocccsize`.
This obfuscated entry is derived from (and compatible with) that code,
but due to obfuscation, has had some significant, deep changes for the contest.
Nevertheless, the more clearly written code remains a spoiler for this entry.</code></pre>
<p>NB: <code>iocccsize</code> gets a different answer from <code>tac</code> on its own
(<a href="../../2018/iocccsize.c">iocccsize.c</a>) source code;
<code>tac</code> gets the correct answer. This is due to the aforementioned bugs within <code>iocccsize</code>,
2018/ferguson/README.md
+115 -99
View File
@@ -206,14 +206,16 @@ It is an implementation of Richard Dawkins' [Weasel program][] (Wikipedia).
According to Wikipedia in chapter three of his book [The Blind Watchmaker][]
Dawkins wrote:
> I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey
> bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of
> Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, *given enough time.* Let us
> limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not
> the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is
> like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter
> with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space
> bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?
```
I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey
bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of
Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, *given enough time.* Let us
limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not
the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is
like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter
with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space
bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?
```
He refers to the [Infinite Monkey Theorem][] (Wikipedia). As he points out the
operative phrase is *given enough time*; but even if it's extremely unlikely
@@ -244,16 +246,18 @@ Here you can find a general explanation of a *[genetic algorithm][]* as well as
brief history. Although the link provides more information (including images to
try and show the way they work) for those interested I will cite the summary:
> Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are adaptive heuristic search algorithm based on the
> evolutionary ideas of natural selection and genetics. As such they represent an
> intelligent exploitation of a random search used to solve optimization problems.
> Although randomised, GAs are by no means random, instead they exploit historical
> information to direct the search into the region of better performance within
> the search space. The basic techniques of the GAs are designed to simulate
> processes in natural systems necessary for evolution, specially those follow the
> principles first laid down by Charles Darwin of "survival of the fittest.".
> Since in nature, competition among individuals for scanty resources results in
> the fittest individuals dominating over the weaker ones.
```
Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are adaptive heuristic search algorithm based on the
evolutionary ideas of natural selection and genetics. As such they represent an
intelligent exploitation of a random search used to solve optimization problems.
Although randomised, GAs are by no means random, instead they exploit historical
information to direct the search into the region of better performance within
the search space. The basic techniques of the GAs are designed to simulate
processes in natural systems necessary for evolution, specially those follow the
principles first laid down by Charles Darwin of "survival of the fittest.".
Since in nature, competition among individuals for scanty resources results in
the fittest individuals dominating over the weaker ones.
```
**SPOILER WARNING: Some of the below might help you follow the code more
easily.**
@@ -284,7 +288,9 @@ Note that the generation is checked *before the scoring takes place* by a prefix
increment equality check; when the generation is `SIZE_MAX - 1` the fitness
test loop will not be entered; instead the outer loop will end after printing:
> Too many attempts, blaming the monkey Eric even if he isn't typing or doesn't exist. Bye.
```
Too many attempts, blaming the monkey Eric even if he isn't typing or doesn't exist. Bye.
```
Why '*Eric*'? Because the judges stated in the [2018 guidelines][] that when
there is a user input error the program should insult the pet fish Eric even if
@@ -292,16 +298,18 @@ such a fish (no, weasels do not equate monkeys to fish but see below) doesn't
exist. The second to last example limitation example note (it's improved in the
final but this is relevant) they give is:
> The judges might not have a pet fish named Eric, so might want to state:
>
> This entry factors integers between 1 and 2305567963945518424753102147331756070.
> Attempting to factor anything else will cause the program to insult your
> pet fish Eric, or in the case that you lack such a pet, will insult the
> pet that you do not have.
The judges might not have a pet fish named Eric, so might want to state:
```
This entry factors integers between 1 and 2305567963945518424753102147331756070.
Attempting to factor anything else will cause the program to insult your
pet fish Eric, or in the case that you lack such a pet, will insult the
pet that you do not have.
```
After the final message they ask:
> BTW: **What is so special about 2305567963945518424753102147331756070**? You tell us!
BTW: **What is so special about 2305567963945518424753102147331756070**? You tell us!
The answer is this: **it is the primorial prime of 97:** the product of all
prime numbers less than or equal to N; **and the primorial prime of `N == 97` is
@@ -905,16 +913,18 @@ Skip to [How to build](#build).
On the subject of beauty: the judges stated in the guidelines the following:
> We want to get away from source that is simply **a compact blob of
> octets.** Really try to be more creative than **blob coding.** *HINT!*
```
We want to get away from source that is simply **a compact blob of
octets.** Really try to be more creative than **blob coding.** *HINT!*
```
And if you'll notice that although it *might look like a compact blob of octets*
at first glance if you look throughout the file you'll see two statements to
set your thinking straight:
> **NO BLOB CODING**
**NO BLOB CODING**
> **THIS IS NOT A COMPACT BLOB OF OCTETS**
**THIS IS NOT A COMPACT BLOB OF OCTETS**
So you see even if your eyes are trying to deceive you they're quite wrong. Yes
some of it might look like a blob but this is clearly false; *as all good
@@ -1133,48 +1143,50 @@ two things I think are rather amusing (in order of least to most):
<a name="dmr">Dennis Ritchie's</a> Anti-Foreword:
> Anti-Foreword
```
Anti-Foreword
> By Dennis Ritchie
> From: dmr@plan9.research.att.com
> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 00:38:07 EST
> Subject: anti-foreword
By Dennis Ritchie
From: dmr@plan9.research.att.com
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 00:38:07 EST
Subject: anti-foreword
> To the contributers to this book:
To the contributers to this book:
> I have succumbed to the temptation you offered in your preface: I do write you
> off as envious malcontents and romantic keepers of memories. The systems you
> remember so fondly (TOPS-20, ITS, Multics, Lisp Machine, Cedar/Mesa, the Dorado)
> are not just out to pasture, they are fertilizing it from below.
I have succumbed to the temptation you offered in your preface: I do write you
off as envious malcontents and romantic keepers of memories. The systems you
remember so fondly (TOPS-20, ITS, Multics, Lisp Machine, Cedar/Mesa, the Dorado)
are not just out to pasture, they are fertilizing it from below.
> Your judgments are not keen, they are intoxicated by metaphor. In the Preface
> you suffer first from heat, lice, and malnourishment, then become prisoners in
> a Gulag. In Chapter 1 you are in turn infected by a virus, racked by drug
> addiction, and addled by puffiness of the genome.
Your judgments are not keen, they are intoxicated by metaphor. In the Preface
you suffer first from heat, lice, and malnourishment, then become prisoners in
a Gulag. In Chapter 1 you are in turn infected by a virus, racked by drug
addiction, and addled by puffiness of the genome.
> Yet your prison without coherent design continues to imprison you. How can
> this be, if it has no strong places? The rational prisoner exploits the weak
> places, creates order from chaos: instead, collectives like the FSF vindicate
> their jailers by building cells almost compatible with the existing ones, albeit
> with more features. The journalist with three undergraduate degrees from MIT,
> the researcher at Microsoft, and the senior scientist at Apple might volunteer a
> few words about the regulations of the prisons to which they have been
> transferred.
Yet your prison without coherent design continues to imprison you. How can
this be, if it has no strong places? The rational prisoner exploits the weak
places, creates order from chaos: instead, collectives like the FSF vindicate
their jailers by building cells almost compatible with the existing ones, albeit
with more features. The journalist with three undergraduate degrees from MIT,
the researcher at Microsoft, and the senior scientist at Apple might volunteer a
few words about the regulations of the prisons to which they have been
transferred.
> Your sense of the possible is in no sense pure: sometimes you want the same
> thing you have, but wish you had done it yourselves; other times you want
> something different, but can't seem to get people to use it; sometimes one
> wonders why you just don't shut up and tell people to buy a PC with Windows or a
> Mac. No Gulag or lice, just a future whose intellectual tone and interaction
> style is set by Sonic the Hedgehog. You claim to seek progress, but you succeed
> mainly in whining.
Your sense of the possible is in no sense pure: sometimes you want the same
thing you have, but wish you had done it yourselves; other times you want
something different, but can't seem to get people to use it; sometimes one
wonders why you just don't shut up and tell people to buy a PC with Windows or a
Mac. No Gulag or lice, just a future whose intellectual tone and interaction
style is set by Sonic the Hedgehog. You claim to seek progress, but you succeed
mainly in whining.
> Here is my metaphor: your book is a pudding stuffed with apposite
> observations, many well-conceived. Like excrement, it contains enough undigested
> nuggets of nutrition to sustain life for some. But it is not a tasty pie: it
> reeks too much of contempt and of envy.
Here is my metaphor: your book is a pudding stuffed with apposite
observations, many well-conceived. Like excrement, it contains enough undigested
nuggets of nutrition to sustain life for some. But it is not a tasty pie: it
reeks too much of contempt and of envy.
> Bon appetit!
Bon appetit!
```
Yes he misspelt *'contributors'*! But then again we're talking about obfuscation
and since it doesn't break his message it's not broken - it's just obfuscated
@@ -1183,52 +1195,56 @@ contest is about? :)
<a name="ken">Ken Thompson's</a> ending:
> Creators Admit C, Unix Were Hoax
```
Creators Admit C, Unix Were Hoax
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
> In an announcement that has stunned the computer industry, Ken Thompson,
Dennis Ritchie, and Brian Kernighan admitted that the Unix operating system and
C programming language created by them is an elaborate April Fools prank kept
alive for more than 20 years. Speaking at the recent UnixWorld Software
Development Forum, Thompson revealed the following:
In an announcement that has stunned the computer industry, Ken Thompson,
Dennis Ritchie, and Brian Kernighan admitted that the Unix operating system and
C programming language created by them is an elaborate April Fools prank kept
alive for more than 20 years. Speaking at the recent UnixWorld Software
Development Forum, Thompson revealed the following:
> "In 1969, AT&T had just terminated their work with the GE/AT&T Multics
project. Brian and I had just started working with an early release of Pascal
from Professor Nichlaus Wirth's ETH labs in Switzerland, and we were impressed
with its elegant simplicity and power. Dennis had just finished reading Bored of
the Rings, a hilarious National Lampoon parody of the great Tolkien Lord of the
Rings trilogy. As a lark, we decided to do parodies of the Multics environment
and Pascal. Dennis and I were responsible for the operating environment. We
looked at Multics and designed the new system to be as complex and cryptic as
possible to maximize casual users' frustration levels, calling it Unix as a
parody of Multics, as well as other more risque allusions.
"In 1969, AT&T had just terminated their work with the GE/AT&T Multics
project. Brian and I had just started working with an early release of Pascal
from Professor Nichlaus Wirth's ETH labs in Switzerland, and we were impressed
with its elegant simplicity and power. Dennis had just finished reading Bored of
the Rings, a hilarious National Lampoon parody of the great Tolkien Lord of the
Rings trilogy. As a lark, we decided to do parodies of the Multics environment
and Pascal. Dennis and I were responsible for the operating environment. We
looked at Multics and designed the new system to be as complex and cryptic as
possible to maximize casual users' frustration levels, calling it Unix as a
parody of Multics, as well as other more risque allusions.
> "Then Dennis and Brian worked on a truly warped version of Pascal, called "A."
When we found others were actually trying to programs with A, we quickly added
additional cryptic features and evolved into B, BCPL, and finally C. We stopped
when we got a clean compile on the following syntax:
"Then Dennis and Brian worked on a truly warped version of Pascal, called "A."
When we found others were actually trying to programs with A, we quickly added
additional cryptic features and evolved into B, BCPL, and finally C. We stopped
when we got a clean compile on the following syntax:
```
``` <!---c-->
for(;P("\n"),R=;P("|"))for(e=C;e=P("_"+(*u++/
8)%2))P("|"+(*u/4)%2);
```
> "To think that modern programmers would try to use a language that allowed
such a statement was beyond our comprehension! We actually thought of selling
this to the Soviets to set their computer science progress back 20 or more
years. Imagine our surprise when AT&T and other U.S. corporations actually began
trying to use Unix and C! It has taken them 20 years to develop enough
expertise to generate even marginally useful applications using this 1960s
technological parody, but we are impressed with the tenacity (if not common
sense) of the general Unix and C programmer.
```
"To think that modern programmers would try to use a language that allowed
such a statement was beyond our comprehension! We actually thought of selling
this to the Soviets to set their computer science progress back 20 or more
years. Imagine our surprise when AT&T and other U.S. corporations actually began
trying to use Unix and C! It has taken them 20 years to develop enough
expertise to generate even marginally useful applications using this 1960s
technological parody, but we are impressed with the tenacity (if not common
sense) of the general Unix and C programmer.
> "In any event, Brian, Dennis, and I have been working exclusively in Lisp on
the Apple Macintosh for the past few years and feel really guilty about the
chaos, confusion, and truly bad programming that has resulted from our silly
prank so long ago."
"In any event, Brian, Dennis, and I have been working exclusively in Lisp on
the Apple Macintosh for the past few years and feel really guilty about the
chaos, confusion, and truly bad programming that has resulted from our silly
prank so long ago."
```
> Major Unix and C vendors and customers, including AT&T, Microsoft,
Major Unix and C vendors and customers, including AT&T, Microsoft,
Hewlett-Packard, GTE, NCR, and DEC have refused comment at this time. Borland
International, a leading vendor of Pascal and C tools, including the popular
Turbo Pascal, Turbo C, and Turbo C++, stated they had suspected this for a
@@ -1240,7 +1256,7 @@ cryptic statement, Professor Wirth of the ETH Institute and father of the
Pascal, Modula 2, and Oberon structured languages, merely stated that P. T.
Barnum was correct.
**So is it a hoax about a non-hoax, a non-hoax about a hoax, a non-hoax about a
So is it a hoax about a non-hoax, a non-hoax about a hoax, a non-hoax about a
non-hoax or is it a hoax about a hoax ? :) And if it's any of those what does it
mean about Unix and C?** And if a hoax is involved *what is the hoax?* The pedant
and Tolkienist that I am has to state that **Tolkien didn't consider The Lord of
2018/ferguson/index.html
+107 -144
View File
@@ -287,16 +287,14 @@ dedicated to this entry beyond what will be published on the IOCCC website.</p>
<p>It is an implementation of Richard Dawkins’ <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program">Weasel program</a> (Wikipedia).
According to Wikipedia in chapter three of his book <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker">The Blind Watchmaker</a>
Dawkins wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey
bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of
Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, <em>given enough time.</em> Let us
limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not
the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence ‘Methinks it is
like a weasel’, and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter
with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space
bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?</p>
</blockquote>
<pre><code> I don&#39;t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey
bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of
Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, *given enough time.* Let us
limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not
the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence &#39;Methinks it is
like a weasel&#39;, and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter
with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space
bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence?</code></pre>
<p>He refers to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem">Infinite Monkey Theorem</a> (Wikipedia). As he points out the
operative phrase is <em>given enough time</em>; but even if it’s extremely unlikely
<em>technically the probability is greater than 0</em>. He simplified it for the
@@ -317,18 +315,16 @@ comparison and output will always be capitalised).</p>
<p>Here you can find a general explanation of a <em><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180308131613/http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol1/hmw/article1.html">genetic algorithm</a></em> as well as a
brief history. Although the link provides more information (including images to
try and show the way they work) for those interested I will cite the summary:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are adaptive heuristic search algorithm based on the
evolutionary ideas of natural selection and genetics. As such they represent an
intelligent exploitation of a random search used to solve optimization problems.
Although randomised, GAs are by no means random, instead they exploit historical
information to direct the search into the region of better performance within
the search space. The basic techniques of the GAs are designed to simulate
processes in natural systems necessary for evolution, specially those follow the
principles first laid down by Charles Darwin of “survival of the fittest.”.
Since in nature, competition among individuals for scanty resources results in
the fittest individuals dominating over the weaker ones.</p>
</blockquote>
<pre><code> Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are adaptive heuristic search algorithm based on the
evolutionary ideas of natural selection and genetics. As such they represent an
intelligent exploitation of a random search used to solve optimization problems.
Although randomised, GAs are by no means random, instead they exploit historical
information to direct the search into the region of better performance within
the search space. The basic techniques of the GAs are designed to simulate
processes in natural systems necessary for evolution, specially those follow the
principles first laid down by Charles Darwin of &quot;survival of the fittest.&quot;.
Since in nature, competition among individuals for scanty resources results in
the fittest individuals dominating over the weaker ones.</code></pre>
<p><strong>SPOILER WARNING: Some of the below might help you follow the code more
easily.</strong></p>
<p>For each <em>generation</em> there is a total of <code>N</code> <em>offspring</em>; generation 0 is
@@ -354,25 +350,19 @@ found.</p>
<p>Note that the generation is checked <em>before the scoring takes place</em> by a prefix
increment equality check; when the generation is <code>SIZE_MAX - 1</code> the fitness
test loop will not be entered; instead the outer loop will end after printing:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Too many attempts, blaming the monkey Eric even if he isn’t typing or doesn’t exist. Bye.</p>
</blockquote>
<pre><code> Too many attempts, blaming the monkey Eric even if he isn&#39;t typing or doesn&#39;t exist. Bye.</code></pre>
<p>Why ‘<em>Eric</em>’? Because the judges stated in the <a href="../../2018/guidelines.txt">2018 guidelines</a> that when
there is a user input error the program should insult the pet fish Eric even if
such a fish (no, weasels do not equate monkeys to fish but see below) doesn’t
exist. The second to last example limitation example note (it’s improved in the
final but this is relevant) they give is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The judges might not have a pet fish named Eric, so might want to state:</p>
<p>This entry factors integers between 1 and 2305567963945518424753102147331756070.
Attempting to factor anything else will cause the program to insult your
pet fish Eric, or in the case that you lack such a pet, will insult the
pet that you do not have.</p>
</blockquote>
<pre><code> This entry factors integers between 1 and 2305567963945518424753102147331756070.
Attempting to factor anything else will cause the program to insult your
pet fish Eric, or in the case that you lack such a pet, will insult the
pet that you do not have.</code></pre>
<p>After the final message they ask:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>BTW: <strong>What is so special about 2305567963945518424753102147331756070</strong>? You tell us!</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The answer is this: <strong>it is the primorial prime of 97:</strong> the product of all
prime numbers less than or equal to N; <strong>and the primorial prime of <code>N == 97</code> is
<code>2305567963945518424753102147331756070</code>. There is no reference to this number
@@ -783,19 +773,13 @@ deciphering #7 help you decipher #5).</p>
<h3 id="beauty"><a name="beauty">Beauty</a></h3>
<p>Skip to <a href="#build">How to build</a>.</p>
<p>On the subject of beauty: the judges stated in the guidelines the following:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We want to get away from source that is simply <strong>a compact blob of
octets.</strong> Really try to be more creative than <strong>blob coding.</strong> <em>HINT!</em></p>
</blockquote>
<pre><code> We want to get away from source that is simply **a compact blob of
octets.** Really try to be more creative than **blob coding.** *HINT!*</code></pre>
<p>And if you’ll notice that although it <em>might look like a compact blob of octets</em>
at first glance if you look throughout the file you’ll see two statements to
set your thinking straight:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>NO BLOB CODING</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>THIS IS NOT A COMPACT BLOB OF OCTETS</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>So you see even if your eyes are trying to deceive you they’re quite wrong. Yes
some of it might look like a blob but this is clearly false; <em>as all good
programmers know if something is potentially confusing or misleading it should
@@ -934,113 +918,93 @@ code must be quite difficult (though maybe not as much as if you were to have to
look at Microsoft Windows code or code for Windows in any case ? :)) and these
two things I think are rather amusing (in order of least to most):</p>
<p><a name="dmr">Dennis Ritchie’s</a> Anti-Foreword:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Anti-Foreword</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>By Dennis Ritchie
From: dmr@plan9.research.att.com
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 00:38:07 EST
Subject: anti-foreword</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>To the contributers to this book:</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>I have succumbed to the temptation you offered in your preface: I do write you
off as envious malcontents and romantic keepers of memories. The systems you
remember so fondly (TOPS-20, ITS, Multics, Lisp Machine, Cedar/Mesa, the Dorado)
are not just out to pasture, they are fertilizing it from below.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Your judgments are not keen, they are intoxicated by metaphor. In the Preface
you suffer first from heat, lice, and malnourishment, then become prisoners in
a Gulag. In Chapter 1 you are in turn infected by a virus, racked by drug
addiction, and addled by puffiness of the genome.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Yet your prison without coherent design continues to imprison you. How can
this be, if it has no strong places? The rational prisoner exploits the weak
places, creates order from chaos: instead, collectives like the FSF vindicate
their jailers by building cells almost compatible with the existing ones, albeit
with more features. The journalist with three undergraduate degrees from MIT,
the researcher at Microsoft, and the senior scientist at Apple might volunteer a
few words about the regulations of the prisons to which they have been
transferred.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Your sense of the possible is in no sense pure: sometimes you want the same
thing you have, but wish you had done it yourselves; other times you want
something different, but can’t seem to get people to use it; sometimes one
wonders why you just don’t shut up and tell people to buy a PC with Windows or a
Mac. No Gulag or lice, just a future whose intellectual tone and interaction
style is set by Sonic the Hedgehog. You claim to seek progress, but you succeed
mainly in whining.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Here is my metaphor: your book is a pudding stuffed with apposite
observations, many well-conceived. Like excrement, it contains enough undigested
nuggets of nutrition to sustain life for some. But it is not a tasty pie: it
reeks too much of contempt and of envy.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Bon appetit!</p>
</blockquote>
<pre><code> Anti-Foreword
By Dennis Ritchie
From: dmr@plan9.research.att.com
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 00:38:07 EST
Subject: anti-foreword
To the contributers to this book:
I have succumbed to the temptation you offered in your preface: I do write you
off as envious malcontents and romantic keepers of memories. The systems you
remember so fondly (TOPS-20, ITS, Multics, Lisp Machine, Cedar/Mesa, the Dorado)
are not just out to pasture, they are fertilizing it from below.
Your judgments are not keen, they are intoxicated by metaphor. In the Preface
you suffer first from heat, lice, and malnourishment, then become prisoners in
a Gulag. In Chapter 1 you are in turn infected by a virus, racked by drug
addiction, and addled by puffiness of the genome.
Yet your prison without coherent design continues to imprison you. How can
this be, if it has no strong places? The rational prisoner exploits the weak
places, creates order from chaos: instead, collectives like the FSF vindicate
their jailers by building cells almost compatible with the existing ones, albeit
with more features. The journalist with three undergraduate degrees from MIT,
the researcher at Microsoft, and the senior scientist at Apple might volunteer a
few words about the regulations of the prisons to which they have been
transferred.
Your sense of the possible is in no sense pure: sometimes you want the same
thing you have, but wish you had done it yourselves; other times you want
something different, but can&#39;t seem to get people to use it; sometimes one
wonders why you just don&#39;t shut up and tell people to buy a PC with Windows or a
Mac. No Gulag or lice, just a future whose intellectual tone and interaction
style is set by Sonic the Hedgehog. You claim to seek progress, but you succeed
mainly in whining.
Here is my metaphor: your book is a pudding stuffed with apposite
observations, many well-conceived. Like excrement, it contains enough undigested
nuggets of nutrition to sustain life for some. But it is not a tasty pie: it
reeks too much of contempt and of envy.
Bon appetit!</code></pre>
<p>Yes he misspelt <em>‘contributors’</em>! But then again we’re talking about obfuscation
and since it doesn’t break his message it’s not broken - it’s just obfuscated
albeit not very much (and it still <em>‘compiles’!</em>); and isn’t that what this
contest is about? :)</p>
<p><a name="ken">Ken Thompson’s</a> ending:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Creators Admit C, Unix Were Hoax</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>In an announcement that has stunned the computer industry, Ken Thompson,
Dennis Ritchie, and Brian Kernighan admitted that the Unix operating system and
C programming language created by them is an elaborate April Fools prank kept
alive for more than 20 years. Speaking at the recent UnixWorld Software
Development Forum, Thompson revealed the following:</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“In 1969, AT&amp;T had just terminated their work with the GE/AT&amp;T Multics
project. Brian and I had just started working with an early release of Pascal
from Professor Nichlaus Wirth’s ETH labs in Switzerland, and we were impressed
with its elegant simplicity and power. Dennis had just finished reading Bored of
the Rings, a hilarious National Lampoon parody of the great Tolkien Lord of the
Rings trilogy. As a lark, we decided to do parodies of the Multics environment
and Pascal. Dennis and I were responsible for the operating environment. We
looked at Multics and designed the new system to be as complex and cryptic as
possible to maximize casual users’ frustration levels, calling it Unix as a
parody of Multics, as well as other more risque allusions.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“Then Dennis and Brian worked on a truly warped version of Pascal, called”A.”
When we found others were actually trying to programs with A, we quickly added
additional cryptic features and evolved into B, BCPL, and finally C. We stopped
when we got a clean compile on the following syntax:</p>
</blockquote>
<pre><code> Creators Admit C, Unix Were Hoax
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
In an announcement that has stunned the computer industry, Ken Thompson,
Dennis Ritchie, and Brian Kernighan admitted that the Unix operating system and
C programming language created by them is an elaborate April Fools prank kept
alive for more than 20 years. Speaking at the recent UnixWorld Software
Development Forum, Thompson revealed the following:
&quot;In 1969, AT&amp;T had just terminated their work with the GE/AT&amp;T Multics
project. Brian and I had just started working with an early release of Pascal
from Professor Nichlaus Wirth&#39;s ETH labs in Switzerland, and we were impressed
with its elegant simplicity and power. Dennis had just finished reading Bored of
the Rings, a hilarious National Lampoon parody of the great Tolkien Lord of the
Rings trilogy. As a lark, we decided to do parodies of the Multics environment
and Pascal. Dennis and I were responsible for the operating environment. We
looked at Multics and designed the new system to be as complex and cryptic as
possible to maximize casual users&#39; frustration levels, calling it Unix as a
parody of Multics, as well as other more risque allusions.
&quot;Then Dennis and Brian worked on a truly warped version of Pascal, called &quot;A.&quot;
When we found others were actually trying to programs with A, we quickly added
additional cryptic features and evolved into B, BCPL, and finally C. We stopped
when we got a clean compile on the following syntax:</code></pre>
<pre><code> for(;P(&quot;\n&quot;),R=;P(&quot;|&quot;))for(e=C;e=P(&quot;_&quot;+(*u++/
8)%2))P(&quot;|&quot;+(*u/4)%2);</code></pre>
<blockquote>
<p>“To think that modern programmers would try to use a language that allowed
such a statement was beyond our comprehension! We actually thought of selling
this to the Soviets to set their computer science progress back 20 or more
years. Imagine our surprise when AT&amp;T and other U.S. corporations actually began
trying to use Unix and C! It has taken them 20 years to develop enough
expertise to generate even marginally useful applications using this 1960s
technological parody, but we are impressed with the tenacity (if not common
sense) of the general Unix and C programmer.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>“In any event, Brian, Dennis, and I have been working exclusively in Lisp on
the Apple Macintosh for the past few years and feel really guilty about the
chaos, confusion, and truly bad programming that has resulted from our silly
prank so long ago.”</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<pre><code> &quot;To think that modern programmers would try to use a language that allowed
such a statement was beyond our comprehension! We actually thought of selling
this to the Soviets to set their computer science progress back 20 or more
years. Imagine our surprise when AT&amp;T and other U.S. corporations actually began
trying to use Unix and C! It has taken them 20 years to develop enough
expertise to generate even marginally useful applications using this 1960s
technological parody, but we are impressed with the tenacity (if not common
sense) of the general Unix and C programmer.
&quot;In any event, Brian, Dennis, and I have been working exclusively in Lisp on
the Apple Macintosh for the past few years and feel really guilty about the
chaos, confusion, and truly bad programming that has resulted from our silly
prank so long ago.&quot;</code></pre>
<p>Major Unix and C vendors and customers, including AT&amp;T, Microsoft,
Hewlett-Packard, GTE, NCR, and DEC have refused comment at this time. Borland
International, a leading vendor of Pascal and C tools, including the popular
@@ -1052,10 +1016,9 @@ the RS/6000, merely stating “Workplace OS will be available Real Soon Now.”
cryptic statement, Professor Wirth of the ETH Institute and father of the
Pascal, Modula 2, and Oberon structured languages, merely stated that P. T.
Barnum was correct.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>So is it a hoax about a non-hoax, a non-hoax about a hoax, a non-hoax about a
<p>So is it a hoax about a non-hoax, a non-hoax about a hoax, a non-hoax about a
non-hoax or is it a hoax about a hoax ? :) And if it’s any of those what does it
mean about Unix and C?</strong> And if a hoax is involved <em>what is the hoax?</em> The pedant
mean about Unix and C?** And if a hoax is involved <em>what is the hoax?</em> The pedant
and Tolkienist that I am has to state that <strong>Tolkien didn’t consider The Lord of
the Rings a trilogy</strong> <em>(and he made that very clear)</em> but that doesn’t take away
from the humour by any stretch (<em>if anyone wants me to elaborate or debate the
2018/mills/README.md
+13 -9
View File
@@ -387,12 +387,14 @@ respectively. Let's try the Dennis Richie's `dmr` account:
Even though this is not Ken's doing, I feel this gives me licence to
include this quote from the BSD `fortune` program:
> Ken Thompson has an automobile which he helped design. Unlike
> most automobiles, it has neither speedometer, nor gas gauge,
> nor any of the numerous idiot lights which plague the modern
> driver. Rather, if the driver makes any mistake, a giant "?"
> lights up in the center of the dashboard. "The experienced
> driver", he says, "will usually know what's wrong."
```
Ken Thompson has an automobile which he helped design. Unlike
most automobiles, it has neither speedometer, nor gas gauge,
nor any of the numerous idiot lights which plague the modern
driver. Rather, if the driver makes any mistake, a giant "?"
lights up in the center of the dashboard. "The experienced
driver", he says, "will usually know what's wrong."
```
What's the deal here? Well, that's a slightly long story. The short version
is we have gone so far back in the history of UNIX that *we don't have
@@ -466,9 +468,11 @@ convenience of writing code in a high-level language -- Multics was written
in a version of PL/1 -- and wanted the same convenience in UNIX. He preferred
BCPL (a typeless language) to PL/1. As Dennis Ritchie [wrote] [6]:
> B can be thought of as C without types; more accurately,
> it is BCPL squeezed into 8K bytes of memory and filtered
> through Thompson's brain.
```
B can be thought of as C without types; more accurately,
it is BCPL squeezed into 8K bytes of memory and filtered
through Thompson's brain.
```
A look at the B reference manual will show the strong correlation with C, and
shows the source of a lot of C's mysteriousness -- some of which is preserved
2018/mills/index.html
+9 -13
View File
@@ -405,14 +405,12 @@ respectively. Let’s try the Dennis Richie’s <code>dmr</code> account:</p>
. ?</code></pre>
<p>Even though this is not Ken’s doing, I feel this gives me licence to
include this quote from the BSD <code>fortune</code> program:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ken Thompson has an automobile which he helped design. Unlike
most automobiles, it has neither speedometer, nor gas gauge,
nor any of the numerous idiot lights which plague the modern
driver. Rather, if the driver makes any mistake, a giant “?”
lights up in the center of the dashboard. “The experienced
driver”, he says, “will usually know what’s wrong.”</p>
</blockquote>
<pre><code> Ken Thompson has an automobile which he helped design. Unlike
most automobiles, it has neither speedometer, nor gas gauge,
nor any of the numerous idiot lights which plague the modern
driver. Rather, if the driver makes any mistake, a giant &quot;?&quot;
lights up in the center of the dashboard. &quot;The experienced
driver&quot;, he says, &quot;will usually know what&#39;s wrong.&quot;</code></pre>
<p>What’s the deal here? Well, that’s a slightly long story. The short version
is we have gone so far back in the history of UNIX that <em>we don’t have
filesystem paths yet</em>. In other words, we can’t say something like
@@ -474,11 +472,9 @@ the [B programming language] <a href="https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/kbma
convenience of writing code in a high-level language – Multics was written
in a version of PL/1 – and wanted the same convenience in UNIX. He preferred
BCPL (a typeless language) to PL/1. As Dennis Ritchie [wrote] <a href="https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/chist.html" title="C History">6</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>B can be thought of as C without types; more accurately,
it is BCPL squeezed into 8K bytes of memory and filtered
through Thompson’s brain.</p>
</blockquote>
<pre><code> B can be thought of as C without types; more accurately,
it is BCPL squeezed into 8K bytes of memory and filtered
through Thompson&#39;s brain.</code></pre>
<p>A look at the B reference manual will show the strong correlation with C, and
shows the source of a lot of C’s mysteriousness – some of which is preserved
simply so that C could compile the <em>dozens</em> of lines of existing B code…</p>