Glad you enjoyed it :-)

If you want to see how the sausage was made, here is the source:

https://github.com/ncw/ioccc-gameboy

You'll find an unobfuscated version (kind-of) there too. This the the one I actually worked on then I had a program squash all the variable names and squeeze it into the gameboy shape

The size limit for the entry was the killer. You are allowed 2503 non white space characters (a simplification - the rules are complicated) in IOCCC entries and 4K total code size. This isn't a lot to fit a Z80 processor and a GameBoy hardware emulator in!

I first wrote a full Gameboy emulator in C. It started out at about 6000 non white space characters. I then spent about about 100 hours work trying to get it to fit into the 2503 limit. For a long time I wasn't sure it was going to fit.

I decided making the emulator play Tetris (which is a fairly simple game) was the target so I stripped out features like the half carry flag in the Z80 emulator and the windowing system in the Gameboy emulation which Tetris didn't need. I also abused the C code terribly doing things with implicit int I can never un-see. I also got creative with the IOCCC rules which are implemented in a C program which checks your source and I spent some time reverse engineering that looking for loopholes! I discovered that the operators defined in <iso646.h> only count for one token which was very useful.

Once I had it small enough I had to supply some games to run with it. I created 4, a test program written in z80 assembler, a pi calculator (written in assembler), a 3d tic tac toe game (written in C with gbdk-2020) and a chess program also written in C. I discovered that quite a few open source games ran on the emulator too so I added a downloader for those where I could. Apparently not many games use BCD arithmetic - who would have thought!

It was a fun project.

Damn, that is cool! Looking at me typing css & php...

https://github.com/ncw/ccforth

https://github.com/ncw/ccforth/tree/master/examples/gameboy

It's an overdone trope in obfuscated programming contests - to make the code look like a picture.

Wow! And it also implements a very interesting variant of SUBLEQ that is turing complete.

>This VM implements an OISC - a One Instruction Set Computer. That instruction takes three signed 32-bit operands, a, b and c, and runs a program from memory m[] as follows:

1 PC (program counter) starts at 0

2 Fetch the next instruction (32-bit signed operands a, b and c)

3 If the low bit on any operand is set, remove it, and replace that operand with m[operand] i.e., a dereference of that address

4 Set m[b] = m[b] - m[a]

5 If m[b] is 0 or negative, set the PC to c, otherwise increment PC by 3 words

6 Go to step 2

I've spent the past few weeks coming up with my own simple programming language, which compiles to linux/amd64 assembly.

I could have gone all out writing standard library routines for opening files, running shell commands, coding strstr, strcpy, and similar. And to be honest I did implement some things I didn't need as part of the learning process (for example print(getenv("HOME")) works). But I soon realized I needed some example programs to test things and show off.

So of course the first real program I implemented was a brainfuck interpreter. Which means my language is now, indirectly, turing complete!

My early versions took 9 minutes to output the famous mandelbrot program, so I had to make a bunch of optimizations, and later implemented support for switch/case statements to speed things up. Now I can generate the same output in two minutes - so room for improvement, but also a good bit of progress!

Cheating by implementing another language in my own was very very satisfying. Though of course this is all for fun/learning and not intended to be used seriously by anybody, not even myself!

https://github.com/skx/s-lang

Here is the video:

https://www.youtube.com/live/MoWCwZx1Swc?si=eIOlRsKWNKRVRZeB...

I think I like this idea, but the linked-to Eternal Software Initiative [1] is a bit confusing. There are several different versions of the instructions to decode this, all conflicting.

There's the one here: Set m[b] = m[b] - m[a]

Then it links to the reference implementation on github [2] which says you just need the napkin notes [3], which is dividing everything read by 4, which is corroborated by the reference implmentation [4], but it's not clear why 4 is chosen here rather than 2, as it seems to waste a bit. Was this bit needed, or is it reserved for future expansion?

I presume the original implementation didn't do the divide by 4 and it was added later, but I don't see why it was needed, other than perhaps just making LLVM code gen a little easier. I'd need to work through lots of examples to work out if the system as described is impossible without dividing by 4 (although you'd presumably only be able to access even addresses, and the PC increases by 3 each time, so it would definitely be annoying to refer to code locations).

Then the reference implementation starts doing magic when location 64 is accessed, overwriting locations 64-67 with the current time, which is mentioned in the napkin description, but not the description on the main page.

Both descriptions mention the magic -1 address, so it seems strange that the very implementation-dependent UTC clock isn't also implemented with -ve addresses rather than trashing memory that is otherwise free for the implementation to use as desired.

Both descriptions also mention the regular timer interrupt process, which also seems disappointing, reusing address 0 as the interrupt handler location and 1 as the saved PC, which means that you have to overwrite the initial entry point at location 0 as soon as the program starts.

[1] https://eternal-software.org/

[2] https://github.com/adriancable/eternal

[3] https://github.com/adriancable/eternal/blob/main/docs/napkin...

[4] https://github.com/adriancable/eternal/blob/main/vm/vm.c

I'm in the no-AI camp, but for this case, I find it interesting, especially since there's little obfuscated C online, and LLMs cannot infer intention from the actual code. Did you spot any entries with LLM support?

Also, the reverse is interesting: how well can they guess the function of the obfuscated code?

This primarily affects the judges who are opening themselves up to potentially a flood of shoddy code, but given the nature of the contest, I suspect they are very good at differentiating interesting code from low quality code.

I think it's great that IOCCC accepts code that might have been built with machine assistance, because it makes the purely handcrafted winners seem even more valuable.

So it turned into an LLM-gymnastics competition?

Rule 7 would be self-contradictory if "tools" include AI.

https://www.ioccc.org/2025/rules.html

It seems to refer to custom code generators. Why would they mean AI if they explicitly talk about a "rich history" (when AI wasn't available)?

Can jump straight to https://www.ioccc.org/2025/#inventory

The first sentence links to the section that lists the winning entries, each of which have a “C code” link in the top right.

It's really hard to navigate. I cannot work out what the contest is; it seems to assume you know what it is already.

I miss it too, and think of it every year. This is also very nice, though.

There are two Frieren references, the other one is https://www.ioccc.org/2025/yang1/index.html

[flagged]

After I made the emulator I trawled GitHub to try to find games it could play within the 32K limit. I found yours - thank you :-) - and the ./try.sh script has an option to download it from GitHub for the user to test.