Talk:International Obfuscated C Code Contest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject C/C++ (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject C/C++, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of C/C++ 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article falls within the scope of C.
 

Visual Studio[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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))

  • If I remember correctly, the approximation is not very accurate but gets better for larger circles. — brighterorange (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
* 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)
 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)
  • Yeah that example should be replaced since it doesn't work with current ANSI C compilers, as is mentioned in the hint that accompanies the code: http://www0.us.ioccc.org/1988/westley.hint (nor does the method suggested on that page make it work either, might be fun to try and figure out how to update it) Rickb235 03:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
#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[edit]

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

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)
please reffer your reference with relations in main article; as it lacks proper external reference in the bottom section. putting it straight
what`s w your reference?
it matters to me as a 6.8mips relates to "6.8million times to run" when looking for some prime numbers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.53.154 (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

cpp[edit]

by using cpp for some time i say code from #cite-15 can not run. reason is because each line has to end with a\ symbol else it`s returning error. tag my observation as personal research for main article good looks188.25.53.154 (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

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)

i doubt google books as prime.

Description of program function[edit]

Could someone include a description of what the flight simulator program does, for us non-programming plebs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikeus (talkcontribs) 07:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)