http://nanochess.110mb.com/chess3.html

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> http://nanochess.110mb.com/chess3.html

That is exceedingly disturbing.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
> http://nanochess.110mb.com/chess3.html

CAUTION:

My virus scanner warns me about some of that page's content! I didn't 
check whether it's a true or false alert, but I'd recommend a heightened 
attention to potential security issues when visiting that page.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://nanochess.110mb.com/chess3.html

that man is clearly a real programmer. ^_^

also amazing the things he does with javascript, the zooming of the photo...
checked the source? :)

http://nanochess.110mb.com/efectos.js

perhaps he generated it from perl... :P

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://nanochess.110mb.com/chess3.html

That's pretty amazing.  Did you try it?  How well does it play?  I mean, not
well of course, but is it at least somewhat competent?  I saw a similar program
whose features included occasional suicide and such.  One of those "features,
not bugs" sort of things.

I've played around with these obfuscated things a little, and I was pretty
surprised how much you can fit in a kilobyte or two of c.  Not to toot my own
horn, but I'm not a skilled programmer in the least, and for 1728 bytes, I
managed to get a 3D incompressible fluid simulator with temperature convection
and buoyancy, adjustable size, an X11 display, volume rendering with faked
scattering, and animation output and playback.  Of course it's no chess
program, but the only trick is to do exactly what he did and iterate about five
times, realizing each time the way you should have done it.  It's actually
pretty addicting...  I think the most elegant I ever saw was this:

http://www.ioccc.org/2000/dhyang.c

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> http://nanochess.110mb.com/chess3.html
> 
> That's pretty amazing.  Did you try it? 

No.  He says it goes 6 ply on that page, tho.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

triple_r schrieb:
> I think the most elegant I ever saw was this:
> 
> http://www.ioccc.org/2000/dhyang.c

Only looks that elegant at first glance, until you notice that he's 
actually kind of cheating: First line defines a single-character empty 
preprocessor macro, which he makes quite liberal use of to achieve the 
desired formatting of the code.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Only looks that elegant at first glance, until you notice that he's
> actually kind of cheating: First line defines a single-character empty
> preprocessor macro, which he makes quite liberal use of to achieve the
> desired formatting of the code.

Did you run it?  If you run it, the output is a different beautifully-formatted
c-code.  If you run that, the output is another formatted c-code.  If you run
that, the output is another formatted c-code.  If you run that, the output is
the first result again.  Basically:

original -> #1
#1 -> #2
#2 -> #3
#3 -> #1

It's probably more mundane than it looks, but at a glance it's pretty slick.
Maybe RLE compression?

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

triple_r <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Did you run it?  If you run it, the output is a different beautifully-formatted
> c-code.  If you run that, the output is another formatted c-code.  If you run
> that, the output is another formatted c-code.  If you run that, the output is
> the first result again.  Basically:

> original -> #1
> #1 -> #2
> #2 -> #3
> #3 -> #1

  It's one of the best self-replicating programs I have ever seen.

  Most self-replicating programs just replicate themselves, and that's it.
No ascii art either.

  This program, however, prints a different program, which prints a third
program, which prints the original program. And all these programs use
ascii art formatting. That's some self-replication there.

  It's just incredible how he could store the *shapes* of all four programs
inside a single self-replicating program.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   It's one of the best self-replicating programs I have ever seen.

FWIW, this is called a "quine", after the philosopher Quine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   It's one of the best self-replicating programs I have ever seen.

> FWIW, this is called a "quine", after the philosopher Quine.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine

  I wonder what a quine in haskell would look like.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   It's just incredible how he could store the *shapes* of all four programs
> inside a single self-replicating program.

I don't know exactly how he did it, but if I had to do it, I would use 1/3 of
the junk at the beginning to define each image (It actually looks like he's
divided them in half).  I would RLE compress the image and add or subtract a
constant until the ascii values were all in the printable range.  If you just
reprint the data section each time with different whitespace and the same
program at the end, maybe you could pull it off.  That's a million miles away
from actually pulling it off, but maybe it would work.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   I wonder what a quine in haskell would look like.

Not sure, but this is a particularly short quine, written in c:

http://www0.us.ioccc.org/1994/smr.c
http://www0.us.ioccc.org/1994/smr.hint

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:34:34 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Most self-replicating programs just replicate themselves, and that's
>   it.
> No ascii art either.

One of the most impressive of these that I've ever seen was from the 
IOCCC - I can't seem to find the right keywords, but it did something 
similar to this but used more than one programming language (ie, #1 was 
C, #2 was maybe Pascal, #3 was C again).  Wish I could find it now.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

triple_r <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Not sure, but this is a particularly short quine, written in c:

> http://www0.us.ioccc.org/1994/smr.c
> http://www0.us.ioccc.org/1994/smr.hint

  That program doesn't link. The linker cannot find the main() function.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>>   Most self-replicating programs just replicate themselves, and that's
>>   it.
>> No ascii art either.
> 
> One of the most impressive of these that I've ever seen was from the 
> IOCCC - I can't seem to find the right keywords, but it did something 
> similar to this but used more than one programming language (ie, #1 was 
> C, #2 was maybe Pascal, #3 was C again).  Wish I could find it now.

I found a program (I forget what it did) that was runnable in multiple 
languages simultaneously...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I found a program (I forget what it did) that was runnable in multiple 
> languages simultaneously...

I  saw that.  And not similar languages. Like, javascript, awk, Haskell, and 
C++ or something.

The one I liked was the one that output its own source code in the shape of 
a maze, and then solved itself.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:11:47 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>>   Most self-replicating programs just replicate themselves, and that's
>>>   it.
>>> No ascii art either.
>> 
>> One of the most impressive of these that I've ever seen was from the
>> IOCCC - I can't seem to find the right keywords, but it did something
>> similar to this but used more than one programming language (ie, #1 was
>> C, #2 was maybe Pascal, #3 was C again).  Wish I could find it now.
> 
> I found a program (I forget what it did) that was runnable in multiple
> languages simultaneously...

Hmmm, maybe that's the one I am remembering - though I was sure there was 
a code generator involved in it...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > http://www0.us.ioccc.org/1994/smr.c
> > http://www0.us.ioccc.org/1994/smr.hint
>
>   That program doesn't link. The linker cannot find the main() function.

I think the hints said there was some tricky compile flags to force it to
compile.  Turns out this is how you compile it:

cp smr.c smr
chmod +x smr

That doesn't seem valid, but I guess that's how you abuse rules and get them
changed.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
>> I found a program (I forget what it did) that was runnable in multiple 
>> languages simultaneously...
> 
> I  saw that.  And not similar languages. Like, javascript, awk, Haskell, 
> and C++ or something.

I actually encountered something close to this in real-life work: It was 
a file designed to be included in both a C program and a makefile, to 
define certain constants.

And typically, pulling this off is even easier if the languages are 
quite different, as the most typical way to do it is by having one 
language see comments where the other one doesn't.

For instance, to fuse POV-Ray SDL and Lua code, you can use the 
following pattern:


#version 3.7; /* (Lua ignores first line if it starts with "#")

   -- Lua code goes here

--[=[ */

   // POV-Ray SDL code goes here

// ]=]

Post a reply to this message

triple_r <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> cp smr.c smr
> chmod +x smr

  I thought it was supposed to be the Internet Obfuscated *C* Code Contest.

  That's not C.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I found a program (I forget what it did) that was runnable in multiple 
> languages simultaneously...

  A polyglot quine?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I found a program (I forget what it did) that was runnable in multiple 
>> languages simultaneously...
> 
>   A polyglot quine?

Sounds suspicously familiar, yes.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> triple_r <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> cp smr.c smr
>> chmod +x smr

>   That's not C.

Are you sure?  (Serious question...)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> triple_r <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>>> cp smr.c smr
>>> chmod +x smr
> 
>>   That's not C.
> 
> Are you sure?  (Serious question...)

To clarify, I recognise it's not a full C program, as it's missing main. I 
just wonder if it's actually an invalid source file.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > Warp wrote:
> >> triple_r <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> >>> cp smr.c smr
> >>> chmod +x smr
> > 
> >>   That's not C.
> > 
> > Are you sure?  (Serious question...)

> To clarify, I recognise it's not a full C program, as it's missing main. I 
> just wonder if it's actually an invalid source file.

  It's not a complete C program. AFAIK the C standard requires for main()
to exist.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Warp wrote:
>>>> triple_r <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>>>>> cp smr.c smr
>>>>> chmod +x smr
>>>>   That's not C.
>>> Are you sure?  (Serious question...)
> 
>> To clarify, I recognise it's not a full C program, as it's missing main. I 
>> just wonder if it's actually an invalid source file.
> 
>   It's not a complete C program. AFAIK the C standard requires for main()
> to exist.

Hence my clarification. It's obviously a valid .h file. But is it a valid .c 
file?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Hence my clarification. It's obviously a valid .h file. But is it a valid .c 
> file?

  According to gcc, no (although it does compile it nevertheless):

> touch test.c
> ls -l
total 0
-rw-r--r-- 1 warp users 0 2009-08-29 21:18 test.c
> gcc -pedantic -c test.c
test.c:1: warning: ISO C forbids an empty source file
warp@a8:~/tmp/hops>ls -l
total 4
-rw-r--r-- 1 warp users   0 2009-08-29 21:18 test.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 warp users 684 2009-08-29 21:18 test.o

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:14:01 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Hence my clarification. It's obviously a valid .h file. But is it a
> valid .c file?

Yes, it would be a valid .c file because a library doesn't need to have a 
main() function.

I also seem to recall that there is a way to specify a different entry 
point rather than main() even for a program, but whether the .c file is 
valid and whether it makes a valid "program" are actually two different 
questions. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Yes, it would be a valid .c file because a library doesn't need to have a 
> main() function.

  Have you checked that the C standard agrees with you?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:22:40 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Yes, it would be a valid .c file because a library doesn't need to have
>> a main() function.
> 
>   Have you checked that the C standard agrees with you?

I researched a little bit, yes.  By definition, a library is not a 
program, just a collection of functions, and as such, a main function is 
not required (in fact, it could cause problems to have a library with a 
main() function).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:22:40 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Yes, it would be a valid .c file because a library doesn't need to have
>> a main() function.
> 
>   Have you checked that the C standard agrees with you?

Windows programs also don't include a main() function - their entry is 
WinMain() IIRC.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:20:56 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Hence my clarification. It's obviously a valid .h file. But is it a  
>> valid .c file?
>
>   According to gcc, no (although it does compile it nevertheless):
>
> > touch test.c
> > ls -l
>  total 0
>  -rw-r--r-- 1 warp users 0 2009-08-29 21:18 test.c
> > gcc -pedantic -c test.c
>  test.c:1: warning: ISO C forbids an empty source file
>  warp@a8:~/tmp/hops>ls -l
>  total 4
>  -rw-r--r-- 1 warp users   0 2009-08-29 21:18 test.c
>  -rw-r--r-- 1 warp users 684 2009-08-29 21:18 test.o

Not everyone thinks that GCC is right about this. The only relevant part I  
can find in the actual standard is "A source file that is not empty shall  
end in a new-line character" (5.1.1.2.2), which seems to imply that empty  
source files are OK.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:22:40 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Yes, it would be a valid .c file because a library doesn't need to have
>> a main() function.
> 
>   Have you checked that the C standard agrees with you?

And further, a multi-file C program doesn't require that every .c file 
have a main() function defined.  Therefore, having a .c file that has no 
main() function in it *is* valid.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:43:36 +0200, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>  
wrote:
>
> Windows programs also don't include a main() function - their entry is
> WinMain() IIRC.

This of course being a platform-specific, non-standard convenience  
extension.


-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:50:18 +0200, Fredrik Eriksson wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 20:43:36 +0200, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
> wrote:
>>
>> Windows programs also don't include a main() function - their entry is
>> WinMain() IIRC.
> 
> This of course being a platform-specific, non-standard convenience
> extension.

Yes, it's defined as a "freestanding" program IIRC.  Point is that you 
can specify a different entry point if desired.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:22:40 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> Yes, it would be a valid .c file because a library doesn't need to have
> >> a main() function.
> > 
> >   Have you checked that the C standard agrees with you?

> I researched a little bit, yes.  By definition, a library is not a 
> program, just a collection of functions, and as such, a main function is 
> not required (in fact, it could cause problems to have a library with a 
> main() function).

  That's not what I meant. I was talking about source files which contain
nothing. The question was whether an empty file is a valid C source file,
to which you responded positively, which is why I asked whether the standard
also says so.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:28:12 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:22:40 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> Yes, it would be a valid .c file because a library doesn't need to
>> >> have a main() function.
>> > 
>> >   Have you checked that the C standard agrees with you?
> 
>> I researched a little bit, yes.  By definition, a library is not a
>> program, just a collection of functions, and as such, a main function
>> is not required (in fact, it could cause problems to have a library
>> with a main() function).
> 
>   That's not what I meant. I was talking about source files which
>   contain
> nothing. The question was whether an empty file is a valid C source
> file, to which you responded positively, which is why I asked whether
> the standard also says so.

The bit you quoted from what I said specifically had to do with a main() 
function not being needed.  It wasn't clear that you were talking about 
an empty file, I thought you were specifically talking about the lack of 
a main() function, since that's what you quoted.

Though now that you've clarified, I see that it could be read either way.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Though now that you've clarified, I see that it could be read either way.

I anyone else amused that one can start a flame war amongst geeks over an 
empty file? :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:02:10 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Though now that you've clarified, I see that it could be read either
>> way.
> 
> I anyone else amused that one can start a flame war amongst geeks over
> an empty file? :-)

Oh, yes, I am very amused by this.  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> triple_r <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> cp smr.c smr
>> chmod +x smr
> 
>   I thought it was supposed to be the Internet Obfuscated *C* Code
>   Contest.
> 
>   That's not C.

They give awards for "best abuse of the rules" in that contest too.

That may not be C, but it *technically* followed the rules (and made the
organizers fix the rules for the next round).

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > Though now that you've clarified, I see that it could be read either way.

> I anyone else amused that one can start a flame war amongst geeks over an 
> empty file? :-)

  Where is it?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message