Jump to content

Talk:International Obfuscated C Code Contest

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 212.87.13.73 (talk) at 20:11, 21 November 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconComputing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Visual Studio

Article says:

(most notably the otherwise very stable Visual Studio)

I don't want to unlaterally make this edit since it seems POV, but this parenthetical remark is problematic to me. I belive "otherwise very stable" is just factually incorrect; visual C++ (which is what the author must be referring to here, since visual studio is not a compiler) has a large number of known bugs (one could see the workarounds in [boost] for examples). These are mostly in the C++ support, to be fair. Removing "otherwise very stable" makes this a dig against VC++, which I think is POV unless there is some way to verify that this compiler dies the most. Perhaps removing the whole parenthetical is the best move. Brighterorange 05:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I've re-written to be NPOV and explain itself a bit better. -- Jon Dowland 30 June 2005 15:03 (UTC)reqallt u have done well

Notable Contributions

Worst abuse of the rules. In several years...

This entry is poorly written. I'd correct it myself, but I'm not sure exactly what it's trying to say. Could someone who knows what this is referring to edit it? 01:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Code doesn't work

By the way, if you compile the provided code (or even take it directly from the website itself), it doesn't appear to work. All i get for output is "0.250", which, unless there have been significant changes in mathematics in the past few years, is NOT equal to PI. -(Simulcra 17:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

* OK, I did find what is wrong:
Actualy the programmer thinks "-_" is replaced by "--F<00||--F-OO--;". But gcc replace it by "- -F<00||--F-OO--;".
If you name the source file "r.c", use this: "gcc -E r.c | sed 's/- -/--/g' > r2.c ; gcc -o r2 r2.c"
Now, run "./r2", the result is "3.141".
--Vspaceg 17:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Interpretation of the program:
 Each first "_" decrement F and OO. Each "-_" decrement only F.
 At the end of "FF_OO" procedure, F contains minus the aproximation of an area of a circle. OO contains minus the diameter.
 The area of a circle is pi * square of radius, so pi = area / (diameter / 2)² = 4 * area / diameter / diameter .
 Pi is aproximated by "4. * -F / OO / OO" .
 --Vspaceg 17:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
#define _ F-->00||-F-OO--;
int F=00,OO=00;main(){F_OO();printf("%1.3f\n",4.*-F/OO/OO);}F_OO()
{
            _-_-_-_
       _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
    _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
    _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
        _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
            _-_-_-_
}

Error in source

The reference at http://www.ioccc.org/2004/vik2.hint lists a 2.0MHz p4. Smallman12q (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That section of the source in question doesn't seem to be cited in the article anyway, so for the purposes of the article it probably doesn't matter. --ais523 15:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Article is lacking independent sources. Here are book sources mentioning IOCCC, including support for it starting out on USENET.

--Lexein (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]