search

aemkei / jsfuck

Write any JavaScript with 6 Characters: []()!+
jsfuck.com
Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License
8.16k stars 674 forks source link

Question: Function constructor possible optimization? #32

Closed dmi3y closed 10 years ago

dmi3y commented 10 years ago

[]["filter"]["constructor"] -jsfuck-> 32162 chars

isNaN["constructor"] -jsfuck-> 11675 chars

Works in Chrome, Node, FF.

Any known caveats why not put chars down?

aemkei commented 10 years ago

Actually, the filter version is "only" 880 chars:

[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+
[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]
][([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]
+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+
[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]]
)[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!
+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+([][[]]+[])[+!
+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]
+([][[]]+[])[+[]]+([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]
]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[
]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]
+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!
+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]
]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]

We can't use isNaN directly, because the only way to access it is using window["isNaN"].

dmi3y commented 10 years ago

Bummer, my bad, I was relaying on the site encoder outputs. Thanks for clarifications.