5 ms·

One of 2004 IOCCC winners (2004/hibachi [1]) was an 154 line long CGI and vhost capable HTTP server [2]. It is one of a few winning entries that ever came with

One of 2004 IOCCC winners (2004/hibachi [1]) was an 154 line long CGI and vhost capable HTTP server [2]. It is one of a few winning entries that ever came with its own ./configure, and violated so many guidelines but not a single rule, making judges pretty upset. Its obfuscation was pretty basic even at that time and it won solely out of the novelty factor. [1] https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/main/2004/hibachi.hint https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/main/2004/hibachi.h... [2] https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/main/2004/hibachi.tar.gz https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/main/2004/hibachi.t... (yes, it is also probably the only winning entry that its source code is packaged into a tarball.)

13of40 6y ago
I wish I could dig it up now, but years ago I ran a QA team that needed to validate that our equivalent of man pages could be downloaded on the fly with a command. The guy who owned it came up with a test plan that included setting up and maintaining a web server just for this purpose, and was dragging the project on for weeks until I sat through lunch one day and wrote him a bare bones HTTP server in Powershell that we could just start locally and talk to at run-time. I'm pretty sure the first cut of it was only like 50 lines of code.
- majkinetor 6y ago
  Today you can do it in single line.
aflag 6y ago
What is the sort of guidelines it violated?
- lifthrasiir 6y ago
  It wasn't obfuscated at all. The guideline doesn't explicitly dislike such entries, but as a side effect of not being obfuscated it implicitly violated several guidelines at once (e.g. it was quite "longer than [it] need[s] to be"). Indeed, today's nginx source code [1] would be probably slightly more obfuscated than this code modulo perhaps name changes (and that can be considered as a minimal effort to get the entry within the size limit). Its only obfuscation was reusing a buffer from getenv() pre-initialized (referred as to "getenv() == "putenv()" in the hint). [1] for example, https://github.com/nginx/nginx/blob/8365f73/src/http/ngx_http_parse.c#L108-L128 https://github.com/nginx/nginx/blob/8365f73/src/http/ngx_htt...

13of40 6y ago

I wish I could dig it up now, but years ago I ran a QA team that needed to validate that our equivalent of man pages could be downloaded on the fly with a command. The guy who owned it came up with a test plan that included setting up and maintaining a web server just for this purpose, and was dragging the project on for weeks until I sat through lunch one day and wrote him a bare bones HTTP server in Powershell that we could just start locally and talk to at run-time. I'm pretty sure the first cut of it was only like 50 lines of code.

majkinetor 6y ago
Today you can do it in single line.

aflag 6y ago

What is the sort of guidelines it violated?

lifthrasiir 6y ago
It wasn't obfuscated at all. The guideline doesn't explicitly dislike such entries, but as a side effect of not being obfuscated it implicitly violated several guidelines at once (e.g. it was quite "longer than [it] need[s] to be"). Indeed, today's nginx source code [1] would be probably slightly more obfuscated than this code modulo perhaps name changes (and that can be considered as a minimal effort to get the entry within the size limit). Its only obfuscation was reusing a buffer from getenv() pre-initialized (referred as to "getenv() == "putenv()" in the hint). [1] for example, https://github.com/nginx/nginx/blob/8365f73/src/http/ngx_http_parse.c#L108-L128 https://github.com/nginx/nginx/blob/8365f73/src/http/ngx_htt...