RE: RE: My obfuscation debut (part II ;)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re(3): My obfuscation debut (part II ;) by cciulla (Friar) on Jun 02, 2000 at 16:01 UTC
Well, there are much better ways to endear yourself to a perl community than to post an obfusicated script that outputs "Perl sunks," which could be interpreted as "Perl sucks." However, giving you the benefit of the doubt, it could also be interpreted as "Perl monks."	[reply]
RE: Re(3): My obfuscation debut (part II ;) by Maqs (Deacon) on Jun 02, 2000 at 16:59 UTC
Hm. the question is why the results differ? Strange, but i have the proper result on my machine and afaik some other people too. /Maqs.	[reply]
RE: RE: Re(3): My obfuscation debut (part II ;) by jjhorner (Hermit) on Jun 02, 2000 at 17:05 UTC
Here is what I got when I ran this: `[09:05:55 jhorner@gateway scripts]$ more 20000601-1.pl #!/usr/bin/perl $_="0123456789";$_=$^X.' '.lc((split/\s/,(scalar (localtime(substr$_,3,6))))[0]).pack("C*",(eval( length$_).substr($_,7,1)),(join'',(split"",$_)[1 ,1,5]));print"\u$_\n"; [09:06:05 jhorner@gateway scripts]$ ./20000601-1.pl Perl sunks` [download] J. J. Horner Linux, Perl, Apache, Stronghold, Unix jhorner@knoxlug.org http://www.knoxlug.org/	[reply] [d/l]