Making C Code Uglier

Test Program

I'm going to use a slightly modified C version of Trabb Pardo Knuth algorithm from Wikipedia because it's small enough while still showcasing most of C constructs/features:

 #include <math.h>;
 #include <stdio.h>;
double f (double t)
{
    return sqrt(fabs(t)) + 5 * pow(t, 3);
}
void tpk (void)
{
    double y, a[11] = {0};
    for (int i = 0; i < 11; i++)
         scanf("%lf", &a[i]);
    for (int i = 10; i >= 0; i--)
        if ((y = f(a[i])) > 400)
            printf("%d TOO LARGE\n", i);
        else
            printf("%d %.16g\n", i, y);
}
int main (void)
{
    tpk();
    return 0;
}

Benign: Indentation and Bracket Placement Style

Two of four spaces? Eight? Or three, maybe? Or—God almighty—tabs? C code styles are numerous and these styles have only one thing in common: all the styles are mutually incompatible and un-aesthetic. No matter which style one prefers—they're delusional and wrong, at least to the ones exhorting another style.

I use Linux kernel style, which might make you scream from the 8 spaces-wide tabs. But I'm not surrendering it.

As a matter of example, I'll use the Pico indentation style (four/five spaces) and bracket placement (before the first expression and after the last one.) Plus added spaces mimicking the Glib style: ¶

double
f (double t)
{ return
    sqrt (fabs (t)) + 5 * pow (t, 3); }

Ugh, block scope and control flow are illegible now.

Confusing: Subscripts

A queer behavior of the standard array subscripts: the index and array parts can be swapped:

double a[11] = {0}, y;
for (int i = 0; i < 11; i++)
        scanf ("%lf", &i[a]);

This reversal is modest, but nonetheless galling.

An exercise to the reader: can you find the exact spot where the subscript is reversed?

Antiquated: K & R style

That's where the post gets shuddery. K & R style, or, as they call it, "I don't understand old C code".

double
f(t)
double t;
{ return
    sqrt (fabs (t)) + 5 * pow (t, 3); }

This style

• duplicates parameter names,
• moves the type information further away from the parameter list,
• removes the typing information from the function.

Luckily, C23 finally removes it, after more than thirty years of yielding to the horror and maintaining it in deprecated status.

Smart: Recursion

Reordering and refactoring functions is always fun. So how about turning all the for-loops into recursion? Recursion is cool, I've heard. So here's a recursive rendering of the number printing loop:

void
print_nums(a, i)
double *a;
int i;
{ if (i < 0)
         return;
     double y = f (i[a]);
     if (y > 400)
         printf ("%d TOO LARGE\n", i);
     else
         printf ("%d %.16g\n", i, y);
     print_nums (a, --i); }

Five more code lines, lots of stack frames (unless you have tail call elimination), and overall less comprehensible control flow. Yay!

Terse: Ternaries

This is my favorite: switching from if-else to ternaries. It's shorter, expression-only, and it makes code look more daunting. And there's a rumor that compilers increase the optimization level when they see ternaries. Likely, out of regard for programmer's bravery.

void
print_nums (a, i)
double *a;
int i;
{ double y;
     (i < 0) ? 0 :
               (y = f (i[a]),
                (y > 400 ? printf ("%d TOO LARGE\n", i) :
                           printf ("%d %.16g\n", i, y)))
               print_nums (a, --i); }

If only comma operator allowed for variable declaration (wink wink C standard committee), this function might've had no double y in it either. But, for now, let this stateful statement stay there.

Unconventional: Delimiter-First Code

There are reasons one can use leading-delimiter style in SQL and Haskell. But in other languages...

void
print_nums (a, i)
double *a;
int i;
{ double y;
     (i < 0)
     ? 0
     : (y = f (i[a])
        , (y > 400
           ? printf ("%d TOO LARGE\n"
                     , i)
           : printf ("%d %.16g\n"
                     , i, y))
        , print_nums (a, --i)); }

I like how the ternaries become more pronounced and how it promotes a functional-ish style. But I bet, your eyes are already hemorrhaging, so feel free to ignore my aesthetic preferences.

Awful: Alternative representations

That's the most horrifying one: C has alternatives to some characters that weren't there at the time of the first standard. There are two-(digraphs) and three-character (trigraphs, deprecated in C23) encodings for [, ^, { etc. Here's a table of transformations:

And here's the code with encoded parts:

void
read_nums (a, i)
double *a;
int i;
<% if (i == 11)
    <% return; %>
    else
        <% scanf ("%lf", &i <:a:>);
        read_nums (a, ++i);%> %>

And that's just digraphs, trigraphs are even worse!

Wrapping Up

Here's the final code for TPK algorithm. It compiles under Clang 13.0.1 on my x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu 😵 (the exact command is clang tpk.c -trigraphs -lm.)

%:include <math.h>;
??=include <stdio.h>;
double
f(t)
double t;
??< return
    sqrt (fabs (t))
    + 5
    * pow (t
           , 3); %>
void
read_nums(a, i)
double *a;
int i;
<% if (i == 11)
    <% return; %>
    else
    ??< scanf ("%lf"
                 , &iLT():a??));
        read_nums (a
                   , ++i);%> %>
void
print_nums(a, i)
double *a;
int i;
<% double y;
     (i < 0)
     ? 0
     : (y = f (i??(a:>)
        , (y > 400
           ? printf ("%d TOO LARGE\n"
                     , i)
           : printf ("%d %.16g\n"
                     , i, y))
        , print_nums (a
                      , --i)); ??>
void tpk ()
 ??< double a <:11:> = ??<0??>
           , y;
    read_nums (a
               , 0);
    print_nums (a
                , 10);
    /* Absolutely unnecessary, but irritating. */
    return; %>
int main ()
<% tpk();
    return 0; ??>

If you want some job security as a C or C++ programmer, you might use some of the things discussed above. But in any other scenario: you don't want to write code this way! Be kind to each other, even when y'all write chthonic C code.

Update: some commenters on Reddit mentioned IOCCC as an additional inspiration and further research direction. This post is by no means exhaustive, and you will likely find much more gory details if you explore IOCCC.

Another update: u/insanelygreat shared an absolutely horrendous piece of code and set of macros that turn C into something BASIC. Here's a small piece of code from their comment you should read in full:

/* check for meta chars */
BEGIN
   REG BOOL slash; slash=0;
   WHILE !fngchar(*cs)
   DO IF *cs++==0
        THEN IF rflg ANDF slash THEN break; ELSE return(0) FI
        ELIF *cs=='/'
        THEN slash++;
        FI
   OD
END

Leave feedback! (via email)