Soul Singin' wrote:[*]Due to an earlier incident in which a forum member dropped a
fork bomb into obfuscated code, I think that there should be a
. NO obfuscation . rule.
In response the mention of said "incident", presented below is a list of tasks that a user must have completed in order that he or she execute said "fork bomb". The user must have:
1. Recognized to which interpreter the code block should be passed,
2. Copied the text from the post that contained said "fork bomb" and saved it as a local file*,
3. Added an appropriate she-bang line from No. 1.**,
4. Made that file executable**,
5. Called that file from a shell**,
and finally, the most important criterion:
The user must have rectified the syntax errors on the last line:
Code: Select all
Scalar found where operator expected at ./alleged-fork-bomb line 6, near "$C $S"
(Missing operator before $S?)
syntax error at ./alleged-fork-bomb line 6, near ""$2[2]$0[1]$0[0] \"";"
syntax error at ./alleged-fork-bomb line 6, near "$C $S"
Execution of ./alleged-fork-bomb aborted due to compilation errors.
If that obfuscated code caused any damages to any user or any user's property,
the user in question irrefutably went out of his or her way to bring the consequences about himself or herself.
The reason that this alleged forkbomb was posted possibly revolved around
the intent to pose a reminder that one should never execute any program or code unless one trusts the author and/or has a complete understanding of what the code will do-- an intent that may or may not have been prompted by a previous post containing obfuscated code-- and possibly did not, in any capacity, revolve around any ill will or intent to deal damage to other users or their property.
In light of the aforementioned propositions, any accusation, whether implicit or explicit, of such ill will on the part of the code's author is utterly misguided.
Perhaps, and only perhaps, these propositions ought to be considered before the issue of an obtrusive warning to the other schoolchildren to behave lest they next be banished to the corner with the dunce hat. While the context in which the prohibition of obfuscated code was presented is arbitrary, the rule is appropriate.
Notice: This post was written with the sole intent of clarifying perceived misunderstandings about said "incident", whether or not those misunderstandings in fact exist, and is no way intended to malign or otherwise defame the author or authors of any text contained herein.
Let it be known that the proscription of obfuscated code is agreeable and just.
* - Or, awkwardly passed the five long lines to the interpreter on the command line and fixed the subsequent quotation problems.
** Of course, these steps could be substituted with a passing of the file containing the code block to the correct interpreter from a shell.
Hint, hint hint: have a beer. Better a sixer. Both of you)
12 year old topic!