I don't understand russian, therefore russian is unreadable.

I don't understand mathematics, therefore math is undreadable.

I don't understand music, therefore sheet is unreadable.

That is your problem in a nutshell.

Meanwhile, people here take a glance at the code and immediately get it, because it is written in a language they understand. These people tend to find it quite readable -- not necessarily an example of most pretty code, but nevertheless readable.

Still you do not address the simplest of points, which there are: meaningful variable names, meaningful procedure names, explaining comments. All of which are minimum standards for software development these days.

I may be a C noob, as I already and in an honest way stated in the very first post, but my points still stand. Those are not some subjective things. It is very clear, that those things add to readability, yet the code does not have them.

I addressed those points implicitly. Those names are meaningful, in context, to the people who understand the language; just as symbols in math are, in context, understandable to those who understand mathematics. And thus there is no need for comments. Arguably, there are too many comments, because I saw many that said something obvious without adding anything useful. Short identifiers aid reading for people who understand the language, because it allows them to focus on what the code does (or, rather, how exactly it does it) rather than what the things in it are (which is obvious to people who understand the language).

> Wait, you are telling me, that people write even less readable code in C? Perhaps you are right. Perhaps people can really be that much without care.

I'm a person who has written a lot of c, readable and unreadable. It's not that folks don't care; I find that notion slightly offensive. It's that a lot of c programmers care about different things. And, especially those of an older school have a different mindset.

When you read c source, especially that labelled "exercise in minimalism", you should approach it as hallowed. Enter the file with a sense of reverence; lose the ego; ask not why the file wasn't written in service to you. As you have here, tsk tsk. Expect a challenge, a puzzle. Ignore the variable names; they may be misleading -- learn for yourself what role each variable takes on each line -- some of us will reuse a variable for multiple purposes throughout its lifetime. Humble yourself with the understanding that the code was not written for you. It was written for a machine infinitely more patient and methodical than you. Use that machine to execute and debug, watch and analyze, to discover the true meaning.

https://www.ioccc.org

I agree with you, the code isn’t as readable as it could be. But that’s precisely the point here: it’s an exercise in artistic license, so its conciseness is a feature, not a bug. Think of it like poetry.

I can recognize why it will generates a feeling of elegance, as some say with short mathematical concise formula. However this is more like of esoteric practices: it's meaningful for the selected few that went through the initiation, and has only the charming/frustrating taste of mystery for other.

But, at least to me, it's nothing like poetry. Anyone, without any specific formation, can read poetry and understand something of it. In poetry, artistic license is the exception, not the general rule. The deep meanings, intertwines between form and content, the attention to metre, the use of allegories, and so on, will not be consciously grabbed by every reader. But still anyone that has the base language knowledge required can read it and find some sense to it.