This program is valid C++, but it doesn’t always follow that valid C is valid C++. There’s differences in the casting rules, and you can have variables in C that are named after C++ keywords.

http://www.cs.utah.edu/~elb/folklore/mel.html

I’m off to the pub now.

Coding still required that level of thinking even as late as the 1980s. I had to use DEC TKB to hand-optimize the compilation of core data aquisition code in the wake of the Westar/Palapa B incident… the aerodynamic heads of the RL02 disk drives needed to fly from the disk edge to the hub in one smooth movement, with zero “seek wiggle”, to avoid piling up I/O and crashing the operating system. This was complicated by the lack of an unsigned integer data type in FORTRAN II, because the disk sector addresses would flip negative after incrementing sector 32767… so I had to eliminate compiler-based bounds checking… anyway, that had to be in the mid to late 80s.

Programming’s different today. You’ll never see a heavy ferrite drum throw its main bearing, snap its shaft, and go careening destructively through a control bunker any more. You can’t set your monitor on fire by sending it the wrong frequency signals any more either. You might as well wear a suit and tie to work!

Short version, old style (will work in C++ with “int main(void)”, but then it won’t work in a lot of C-compilers, “int main(int argc, char *argv[])” will work in C++ and with C-compilers that isn’t really, really ancient), untested:

#include
#include
#include
main(){for(;;) if(fork()) for(;;) puts(“FUCK YO MEMRY”);}

http://www.amazon.com/Devouring-Fungus-Jennings-Karla/dp/0393307328

int fym()
{
fork();
printf(“har\n”);
return fym() + 1;
}

int main()
{
fym();
return 0;
}

I mean, we’re the school that invented this website:

http://www.ritporn.com

It’s quite possible the unknown graffiti artist made the program intentionally buggy – for many years, it was standard practice when posting code that was potentially dangerous to include a subtle bug, so that clueless newbies couldn’t use the exploit as-is. You had to have enough clue to spot the bug and fix it yourself, which kept the knuckle-walking trolls from using the code to break things without understanding.

It also doesn’t look like it would do what the author intended as both the parent and child after the work will go into the infinite for/printf loop and never reiterate in the infinite while/fork loop.

The discussion ended up funnier than the post!