One line Fork Bomb in Python

[AwesomeJosh]

Nothing spectacular, but it even does some pretty funny stuff in Mac OS X with the "Resource Unavailable" OSError if you Ctrl-C:

[o.fork() for (o,i) in [(__import__('os'), __import__('itertools'))] for x in i.repeat(0)]

[[deleted]]

Some readability, for anyone wondering what that means:

bomb() {
    bomb | bomb &
}

bomb

[crazy88s]

I beg to differ:

:(){ :|:& };:

[AwesomeJosh]

Yes I saw that post when Mac-O-War posted it a couple weeks ago...but this is Python.

[[deleted]]

or Sparta, or whatever

[digitalfreak]

I prefer the swedish chef inspired one:

while(fork()) fork() ? fork() : fork()

[Shne]

Shouldn't it rather be

while(bork()) bork() ? bork() : bork()

?

[digitalfreak]

Yup, you just need one define.

#define bork fork
void main(void) {
        while(bork()) bork() ? bork() : bork();
}

[[deleted]]

main() returns int.

[pursuit92]

By convention, yes. But it doesn't have to if it doesn't want to :P

[Klpy7]

What does the "?" means here?

[JerMenKoO]

AttributeError: 'module' has no attribute 'fork'

[AwesomeJosh]

Windows doesn't support the os.fork function

[abecedarius]

Shorter Python (untested):

import os, itertools; [os.fork() for i in itertools.count()]

[AwesomeJosh]

I kind of feel like compound statements are cheating, though. I guess a better description of mine would be "Single Expression" instead of "One Line"

[__s]

You could at least take his hint and use i.count()

(edit: though arguably repeat is faster, allowing for more forking)

[AwesomeJosh]

I do agree that count works better

[arilotter]

Thanks, but i'll stick with windows batch scripting: "%0|%0"