There is a large number of J.A.P.H. programs floating around,
but I am curious to know if they have ever been golf'd. Of
course, most are elegant from a point of fantastic obfuscation,
but not usually in terms of economy of characters. This, it
seems, limits artistic expression.
Without the devious short-cut of calling the program "Just Another Perl Hacker" and then using: print$0 As in, the name of the script is arbitrary, and as such, the code should be able to operate in a cut-and-paste capacity, just like most obfuscations.
The question is, is there anything more economical than: print"Just Another Perl Hacker" Or, rather: die"Just Another Perl Hacker\n" As far as I can tell, there is very little wiggle room.
Without the devious short-cut of calling the program "Just Another Perl Hacker" and then using: print$0 As in, the name of the script is arbitrary, and as such, the code should be able to operate in a cut-and-paste capacity, just like most obfuscations.
The question is, is there anything more economical than: print"Just Another Perl Hacker" Or, rather: die"Just Another Perl Hacker\n" As far as I can tell, there is very little wiggle room.
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re: (Golf) JAPH?
by dailylemma (Scribe) on May 17, 2001 at 05:02 UTC | |
Re (tilly) 1: (Golf) JAPH?
by tilly (Archbishop) on May 17, 2001 at 04:52 UTC | |
Re: (Golf) JAPH?
by MeowChow (Vicar) on May 17, 2001 at 05:08 UTC | |
by bobione (Pilgrim) on May 17, 2001 at 14:10 UTC | |
Re: (Golf) JAPH?
by MeowChow (Vicar) on May 18, 2001 at 01:01 UTC | |
(kudra: being silly) Re: (Golf) JAPH?
by kudra (Vicar) on May 17, 2001 at 15:35 UTC | |
Re: (Golf) JAPH?
by dws (Chancellor) on May 17, 2001 at 04:54 UTC | |
by MeowChow (Vicar) on May 17, 2001 at 06:15 UTC | |
by tilly (Archbishop) on May 17, 2001 at 05:54 UTC | |
by dws (Chancellor) on May 17, 2001 at 05:58 UTC | |
by tilly (Archbishop) on May 17, 2001 at 14:50 UTC | |
Re: (Golf) JAPH?
by jmcnamara (Monsignor) on May 17, 2001 at 14:03 UTC |
Back to
Meditations