Comments 18
Перевод:
Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea — let's do more of those!
Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea — let's do more of those!
У меня в школе еще на информатике подобная задачка была.
Может так было легче дзэн придумывать? А потом пришлось писать интерпретатор чтобы все остальные поняли)
Мнда, зашифровали так зашифровали.
И конечно же это в традициях лучших головоломок Perl:
И конечно же это в традициях лучших головоломок Perl:
#!/usr/bin/perl
$_='
$q ="\ 47"; wh
ile ($ ;=
$z += .5 ){
%c= $r=0;$/ ="";whi le(2
0+ $z>($;+=.05)){$c{int$ _+ 2
6+ 2*($ r+= .0 2) *
s in$ ;}{1 -$_
+1 0+ int $r*c o s
$ ;} =1for(0. .1) }$
t =r ever se;$ /. =`
c le ar `. " #!
/ usr /bi n/ pe
rl \n\ $_ =$q \n" ;
fo r$y (1..20){$c{$_} {
$ y }? $ /.=chop$t :
($/ . =" \4
0") for(0. .53) ;
$/. ="\n"}pri nt"$/$ q;
s; ". chr(9 2)."s;;g;eval\n "}
';s;\s;;g;eval
Классика, ROT13!
«Simple is better than complex» — а не противоречит ли код этому постулату?
Не вижу ничего сложного: циклическое смещение на 13 символов.
Я всегда говорил, что на Питоне всё проще и быстрее! Вон, смотрите, какой компактный переводчик с эльфийского на английский.
Sign up to leave a comment.
Import this — Zen of Python