@AlexA. I'll probably switch to this: An HP Spectre with Win 10 and eOS in DualBoot. But I don't really use linux that much anymore, since the linux subsystem on Windows is really mature by now.
@AlexA. It's a kernel-level ubuntu server "VM". Calling it "bash" is really misleading. More like SSHing into a weird second personality of your OS kernel :D
@AlexA. You have a full linux experience, but the VM can quickly be reset without loosing any data. And a whole lot of windows "ports" just became pretty obsolete (like PuTTY etc.)
And you can test linux and windows version of a software locally without switching OSs or using an emulator
Well, obfuscation where code is being obfuscated is off-topic, I believe. It's also very broad and open-ended. Obfuscation where the objective is to de-obfuscate is on-topic in the context of CnR challenges.
Hmm. What I was talking about earlier was merely about obfuscating code. Some challenges seem to be about obfuscating text and other things, not the code you write/decipher.
BrainFuck, 106 strokes
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>++.>+.+++++++..+++.>++.<<+++++++++++++++.>.+++.------.--------.
Meets all the rules and it sure is obfuscated.
What's a word that covers inbuilt things like for and typedef but not things like Console.WriteLine or printf? (Things with normal comma separated function parameters)
function is a keyword but it has comma separated parameters
Or does the function name have parameters
I'm trying to mentally differentiate the logic branches between formats like for(whatever; whatever; whatever) and keywords like function(param, param)
anyway, what's the best way to logically lay out the difference between a scope without a constructor and a scope with a constructor... This has been slowly scratching my mind for days ;-;
@El'endiaStarman I'm working on approaching scopes in my tokeniser. At the moment it's pretty crude, but I want to find an algorithmic or perhaps grammatical approach that doesn't feel crude
> I once knew a little internet community that repeated the same six lines of conversation, in the same order, for over ten years, while having their actual conversation in their posts' title lines
There might actually be slightly more error in my solution than theirs: x: 0.883, y: 0.349, z: 0.031 vs x: 0.881, y: 0.350, z: 0.025. I don't know if that 0.006 is significant.
that's running on "realistic" mode. In ideal mode they are identical.
Yea, can't find with an initial search, and it isn't really worth the effort.
It was like "16 is interesting because it's 4^2. 37 is interesting because [some made up bullshit]. For an input integer, output what makes it interesting."
Mini-challenge: Given int N > 0, output the smallest ints greater than N a, b, and c, such that a is divisible by 2, b is divisible by 3, and c is divisible by 4.
BrainFuck, 106 strokes
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<-]>++.>+.+++++++..+++.>++.<<+++++++++++++++.>.+++.------.--------.
Meets all the rules and it sure is obfuscated.
