amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt) (10/13/89)
They just had the "Obfuscated C contest" in comp.lang.c; and it struck me that nothing could be more boring than an "Obfuscated Pascal" contest, and I'd just like to know if this is really true. Ideally, the contest should be restricted to ISO Level 0 Standard conforming entries of under a certain size. What do other people think? Note: I am not proposing such a contest, but if people want to e-mail me little gnarled up wierd Pascal programs beyond human comprehension, I don't mind. I don't think there are any. Later, Andrew (I asked for it, didn't I) Mullhaupt
R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com (10/15/89)
Goes against the WHOLE IDEA of Pascal!
R. Tim Coslet
Usenet: R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com
BIX: r.tim_cosletamull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt) (10/16/89)
In article <23122@cup.portal.com>, R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com writes: > Goes against the WHOLE IDEA of Pascal! > > R. Tim Coslet > > Usenet: R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com > BIX: r.tim_coslet I thought I made it clear in my original posting that I thought there wasn't any obfuscated Pascal. All but two of the responses I have got so far agree with this sentiment. I'll collect the obfuscations, (I have received no actual programs. One guy sent me an idea on how to obfuscate Pascal, and the other guy threatened to send me an 1100 line program after he compresses out the comments.) If there is any Obfuscated Pascal, it's pretty thin soup compared to C. Maybe some other kind of programming contest is more to the taste of Pascal, but I can't think of what it would be. Let me clarify my willingness to pore over obfuscation candidates: 1. Mere program size is not much of an obfuscation. Keep it small, (probably under 5K bytes of source is reasonable). 2. Format abuse is not enough. The obfuscation should be resistant to prettyprinting. 3. Stick to the ISO standard. (Level 0 preferred.) This means that range checking will not be defeated. 4. The program source must compile and run, preferably actually doing something. 5. Comments should be omitted entirely, or misleading. The smallest possible source which performs a given task is likley to be the most impenetrable. I'm not really trying to encourage submissions, just give an indication of some things that I wouldn't think very interesting. Later, Andrew Mullhaupt