World Smallest Program

[CK]

Hi EveryBody!
This is the World Smallest Program in c.

main(l
,a,n,d)char**a;{
for(d=atoi(a[1])/10*80-
atoi(a[2])/5-596;n="@NKA\
CLCCGZAAQBEAADAFaISADJABBA^\
SNLGAQABDAXIMBAACTBATAHDBAN\
ZcEMMCCCCAAhEIJFAEAAABAfHJE\
TBdFLDAANEfDNBPHdBcBBBEA_AL\
H E L L O, W O R L D! "
[l++-3];)for(;n-->64;)
putchar(!d+++33^
l&1);}

by
CK

[Martin Ambuhl]

CK wrote:

Hi EveryBody!
This is the World Smallest Program in c.

Obviously not, for at least two reasons.

[Chris Hills]

In article <11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>, CK
<ch***********@gmail.com> writes

Hi EveryBody!
This is the World Smallest Program in c.

main(l
,a,n,d)char**a;{
for(d=atoi(a[1])/10*80-
atoi(a[2])/5-596;n="@NKA\
CLCCGZAAQBEAADAFaISADJABBA^\
SNLGAQABDAXIMBAACTBATAHDBAN\
ZcEMMCCCCAAhEIJFAEAAABAfHJE\
TBdFLDAANEfDNBPHdBcBBBEA_AL\
H E L L O, W O R L D! "
[l++-3];)for(;n-->64;)
putchar(!d+++33^
l&1);}

by
CK

int main(int var)
(
return(var +1)
)

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Suman]

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>, CK
<ch***********@gmail.com> writes

Hi EveryBody!
This is the World Smallest Program in c.

main(l
,a,n,d)char**a;{
for(d=atoi(a[1])/10*80-
atoi(a[2])/5-596;n="@NKA\
CLCCGZAAQBEAADAFaISADJABBA^\
SNLGAQABDAXIMBAACTBATAHDBAN\
ZcEMMCCCCAAhEIJFAEAAABAfHJE\
TBdFLDAANEfDNBPHdBcBBBEA_AL\
H E L L O, W O R L D! "
[l++-3];)for(;n-->64;)
putchar(!d+++33^
l&1);}

by
CK

int main(int var)
(
return(var +1)
)

....and this compiles on? Not with my gcc 4.0.0 though!
BTW: what's wrong with int main(){} ?

[Richard Bos]

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

In article <11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>, CK
<ch***********@gmail.com> writes

This is the World Smallest Program in c.

main(l
,a,n,d)char**a;{

[ Snip ten more lines ]
int main(int var)
(
return(var +1)
)

Well, it's just as much the smallest, and just as much a C program.

The answer, perhaps surprisingly (or perhaps not) is different for C89
and for C99. Guess which is smaller?

Richard

[noblesantosh]

CK wrote:

Hi EveryBody!
This is the World Smallest Program in c.

???? In what sense, it is worlds smallest? and what does it do?

-santosh

[Suman]

Richard Bos wrote:

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

In article <11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>, CK
<ch***********@gmail.com> writes

This is the World Smallest Program in c.

main(l
,a,n,d)char**a;{

[ Snip ten more lines ]

int main(int var)
(
return(var +1)
)

Well, it's just as much the smallest, and just as much a C program.

The answer, perhaps surprisingly (or perhaps not) is different for C89
and for C99. Guess which is smaller?

Guess what, I was going to append the gcc call that I used
(blame it on hubris or what you will):
gcc -std=c99 -Wall -pedantic -ansi test.c

AFAIR, there's no falling-off of main in C89. Is that what you mean?

[Rob Morris]

no**********@yahoo.com wrote:

CK wrote:

Hi EveryBody!
This is the World Smallest Program in c.

???? In what sense, it is worlds smallest? and what does it do?

-santosh

It's not the world's smallest, it's the "World Smallest"

Call it with 2 or more arguments, and it prints out a little text world
map, though I'm not sure how portable it is. I'm sure we've all written
little text-picture-encoded-in-a-string programs, but I found it a
fairly amusing post.

--
Rob Morris: arr emm four four five (at) cam dot ac dot uk

[Richard Bos]

Rob Morris <rm***@cam.spam.ac.uk> wrote:

no**********@yahoo.com wrote:

CK wrote:

This is the World Smallest Program in c.

???? In what sense, it is worlds smallest? and what does it do?

It's not the world's smallest, it's the "World Smallest"

Call it with 2 or more arguments, and it prints out a little text world
map, though I'm not sure how portable it is. I'm sure we've all written
little text-picture-encoded-in-a-string programs, but I found it a
fairly amusing post.

But it still isn't the smallest, nor print the smallest. This does:

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void){puts(".");}

C99, of course. And it's a _very_ small world map.

Richard

[Dave Vandervies]

In article <42***************@news.xs4all.nl>,
Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.org> wrote:

In article <11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>, CK
<ch***********@gmail.com> writes

>This is the World Smallest Program in c.
>
>main(l
>,a,n,d)char**a;{

[ Snip ten more lines ]

int main(int var)
(
return(var +1)
)

Well, it's just as much the smallest, and just as much a C program.

If you print the first one in flyspeck-3 and the second one in a
readable font, you might be able to miss little details like that for
the first one.

The answer, perhaps surprisingly (or perhaps not) is different for C89
and for C99. Guess which is smaller?

That would be "It depends", if I'm not mistaken. Do we have to have a
sensible return value?

In no specified order:
--------
main(){}
--------
int main(){}
--------
main(){return 0;}
--------
Depending on implementation-defined (or is it unspecified?) aspects of
the implementation used to implement the implementation you're using
(if I'm not mistaken and haven't confused myself putting that clause
together), you may or may not be able to get away with dropping the
newline after the `}'.
dave
(now how 'bout "smallest doing something useful"?)

--
Dave Vandervies dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca

Writing a C program is one possible way to do it.
--Richard Heathfield answers a poorly disguised homework question in CLC

[Anonymous 7843]

In article <11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
CK <ch***********@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi EveryBody!
This is the World Smallest Program in c.

main(l
,a,n,d)char**a;{
for(d=atoi(a[1])/10*80-
atoi(a[2])/5-596;n="@NKA\
CLCCGZAAQBEAADAFaISADJABBA^\
SNLGAQABDAXIMBAACTBATAHDBAN\
ZcEMMCCCCAAhEIJFAEAAABAfHJE\
TBdFLDAANEfDNBPHdBcBBBEA_AL\
H E L L O, W O R L D! "
[l++-3];)for(;n-->64;)
putchar(!d+++33^
l&1);}

I'm guessing that it's not original. Possibly it was
originally an IOCCC entry and formatted like so:

main(l
,a,n,d)char**a;{
for(d=atoi(a[1])/10*80-
atoi(a[2])/5-596;n="@NKA\
CLCCGZAAQBEAADAFaISADJABBA^\
SNLGAQABDAXIMBAACTBATAHDBAN\
ZcEMMCCCCAAhEIJFAEAAABAfHJE\
TBdFLDAANEfDNBPHdBcBBBEA_AL\
H E L L O, W O R L D! "
[l++-3];)for(;n-->64;)
putchar(!d+++33^
l&1);}

[fixed-width font required]

Such that the program itself resembles the world. I suspect
that the original author would not have been so quick to
remove the indentation.

http://www.ioccc.org/1992/westley.c
--
7842++

[Richard Bos]

dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Vandervies) wrote:

In article <42***************@news.xs4all.nl>,
Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:

The answer, perhaps surprisingly (or perhaps not) is different for C89
and for C99. Guess which is smaller?
That would be "It depends", if I'm not mistaken. Do we have to have a
sensible return value?

Well, yes, of course. Otherwise, we could just leave it empty and claim
that "Link: no such function as main()" is the output of our program.
(now how 'bout "smallest doing something useful"?)

Ah, now there's a mare's nest. How does one define "useful"? Always
returning zero could be useful in some circumstances, for example as a
stub in makefiles.

Richard

[Chris Croughton]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:07:45 GMT, Richard Bos
<rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:

dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Vandervies) wrote:

In article <42***************@news.xs4all.nl>,
Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:

>The answer, perhaps surprisingly (or perhaps not) is different for C89
>and for C99. Guess which is smaller?

That would be "It depends", if I'm not mistaken. Do we have to have a
sensible return value?

Well, yes, of course. Otherwise, we could just leave it empty and claim
that "Link: no such function as main()" is the output of our program.

(now how 'bout "smallest doing something useful"?)

Ah, now there's a mare's nest. How does one define "useful"? Always
returning zero could be useful in some circumstances, for example as a
stub in makefiles.

true.c:

int main(void) {return 0;}

Very useful in Unix-like shells. For 'false' to be portable requires a
header, unfortunately (although Unix-like systems usually say that it
returns 1 explicitly, because the implementation defines how the values
returned are treated by the system).

Chris C

[Keith Thompson]

Chris Croughton <ch***@keristor.net> writes:
[...]

true.c:

int main(void) {return 0;}

Very useful in Unix-like shells. For 'false' to be portable requires a
header, unfortunately (although Unix-like systems usually say that it
returns 1 explicitly, because the implementation defines how the values
returned are treated by the system).

<SOMEWHAT_OT>
I've seen implementations of /bin/false that return a value of 255.
(Unix treats any non-zero status as false.)

If it's for Unix only, portability isn't much of a concert; "exit 1;"
is ok.
</SOMEWHAT_OT>

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Dave Vandervies]

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:

<SOMEWHAT_OT> If it's for Unix only, portability isn't much of a concert; "exit 1;"
is ok.
I would think that "return 1;" or "exit(1);" would be better, at least
if you're planning to put it in something you're giving to a C compiler.
</SOMEWHAT_OT>

dave
(regularly uses a system where /bin/false is "exit 1")

--
Dave Vandervies dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
[S]ome models of the DS9000 use an eleven-bit byte, and ... those eleven bits
occupy all but one of the vertices of a regular dodecahedron (the twelfth
vertex is reserved for future expansion). --Eric Sosman in comp.lang.c

[Keith Thompson]

dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Vandervies) writes:

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:

<SOMEWHAT_OT>

If it's for Unix only, portability isn't much of a concert; "exit 1;"
is ok.

I would think that "return 1;" or "exit(1);" would be better, at least
if you're planning to put it in something you're giving to a C compiler.

</SOMEWHAT_OT>

dave
(regularly uses a system where /bin/false is "exit 1")

Sorry, I forgot to add the

#define exit exit(1);

above the "exit 1;".

(Either than, or I had just been looking at a /bin/false
implementation that happened to be a Bourne shell script, and I simply
wasn't paying enough attention to what I was writing -- but that
hardly seems plausible.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Anonymous 7843]

In article <db**********@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
Dave Vandervies <dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

[S]ome models of the DS9000 use an eleven-bit byte, and ... those eleven bits
occupy all but one of the vertices of a regular dodecahedron (the twelfth
vertex is reserved for future expansion). --Eric Sosman in comp.lang.c

A dodecahedron has 20 vertices, not 12.
Clearly, Eric meant to say faces.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dodecahedron.html
--
7842++

[Keith Thompson]

The universe before the big bang. Actual size.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org> Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> writes:
....

I've seen implementations of /bin/false that return a value of 255.
(Unix treats any non-zero status as false.)

They are mostly shell-scripts. The Solaris script I am looking at returns
255, and is at version 1.6. I remember a Cray script returning the same
value and being at version 32.1 or something like that. But on the Linux
system I am using it is 1 (but it is not a script, but a compiled program,
and it refused to give the version).
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[Chris Croughton]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:51:12 GMT, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.org> wrote:

Chris Croughton <ch***@keristor.net> writes:
[...]

true.c:

int main(void) {return 0;}

Very useful in Unix-like shells. For 'false' to be portable requires a
header, unfortunately (although Unix-like systems usually say that it
returns 1 explicitly, because the implementation defines how the values
returned are treated by the system).
<SOMEWHAT_OT>
I've seen implementations of /bin/false that return a value of 255.
(Unix treats any non-zero status as false.)

Well, it could return any non-zero value, but none of them are portable
except whatever value EXIT_FAILURE happens to have.
If it's for Unix only, portability isn't much of a concert; "exit 1;"
is ok.
A portable concert is an interesting concept <g>. "exit 1;" gives
compiler errors, though...
</SOMEWHAT_OT>

Chris C

[Chris Croughton]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 02:43:14 GMT, Dik T. Winter
<Di********@cwi.nl> wrote:

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org> Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> writes:
...

> I've seen implementations of /bin/false that return a value of 255.
> (Unix treats any non-zero status as false.)
They are mostly shell-scripts. The Solaris script I am looking at returns
255, and is at version 1.6. I remember a Cray script returning the same
value and being at version 32.1 or something like that.

The mind boggles. Did they have a change history?
But on the Linux system I am using it is 1 (but it is not a script,
but a compiled program, and it refused to give the version).

$ /bin/false --version
false (GNU sh-utils) 2.0.11
Written by no one.

Copyright (C) 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Are you sure you're running the program and not a command in your shell
(bash and zsh both implement it as a command directly, without running
the external program)?

Chris C

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <sl******************@ccserver.keris.net> ch***@keristor.net writes:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 02:43:14 GMT, Dik T. Winter
<Di********@cwi.nl> wrote:

....

> I've seen implementations of /bin/false that return a value of 255.
> (Unix treats any non-zero status as false.)

They are mostly shell-scripts. The Solaris script I am looking at returns
255, and is at version 1.6. I remember a Cray script returning the same
value and being at version 32.1 or something like that.

The mind boggles. Did they have a change history?

I have never seen one.

But on the Linux system I am using it is 1 (but it is not a script,
but a compiled program, and it refused to give the version).

$ /bin/false --version
false (GNU sh-utils) 2.0.11
Written by no one.

Copyright (C) 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Are you sure you're running the program and not a command in your shell
(bash and zsh both implement it as a command directly, without running
the external program)?

I must have made an error when I tried the various possibilities (and my
shell is ksh ;-)):
false (GNU coreutils) 5.0
Written by Jim Meyering.

Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Apparently it is now written by somebody.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[Richard Bos]

"Dik T. Winter" <Di********@cwi.nl> wrote:

I must have made an error when I tried the various possibilities (and my
shell is ksh ;-)):
false (GNU coreutils) 5.0
Written by Jim Meyering.

Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Apparently it is now written by somebody.

Mr. Meyering's mum will be _so_ proud... :-)

Richard