GitHub - jeffshrager/HackersGuides · GitHub
/" data-turbo-transient="true" />
Skip to content
Search or jump to...
Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...
-->
Search
Clear
Search syntax tips
Provide feedback
--><br>We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
Include my email address so I can be contacted
Cancel
Submit feedback
Saved searches
Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly
-->
Name
Query
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Cancel
Create saved search
Sign in
/;ref_cta:Sign up;ref_loc:header logged out"}"<br>Sign up
Appearance settings
Resetting focus
You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.<br>You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.<br>You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.
Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
jeffshrager
HackersGuides
Public
Notifications<br>You must be signed in to change notification settings
Fork
Star
main
BranchesTags
Go to file
CodeOpen more actions menu
Folders and files<br>NameNameLast commit message<br>Last commit date<br>Latest commit
History<br>5 Commits<br>5 Commits
ELIZA
ELIZA
SHRDLU
SHRDLU
Spacewar
Spacewar
COPYRIGHT.md
COPYRIGHT.md
README.md
README.md
View all files
Repository files navigation
Hacker's Guides
Travel writing for historic source code.
This repository collects Hacker's Guides : close readings of landmark programs, written for the curious visitor rather than the specialist. Each guide takes one program — usually decades old, usually famous for what it did rather than how it did it — and walks through the actual source the way a good guidebook walks through a city: a map first, then the districts, then the things you'd never notice on your own.
The premise is that historic code is worth reading, not just running or citing. The source of a famous program records decisions, constraints, jokes, borrowings, and unfinished business that no retrospective summary preserves. These guides try to make that record legible to someone without the period machine, the period language, or a PhD in the field the program founded.
Who these are for
Programmers curious about how famous systems actually worked under the hood
Students of computing history who want to go one level deeper than the standard accounts
Researchers in software studies / critical code studies looking for technically grounded walkthroughs
Anyone who has heard a program's legend and wants to see the artifact
No familiarity with the original language or hardware is assumed. Each guide includes a primer on whatever dialect, notation, or machine quirks are needed to read the excerpts.
The format
Every guide follows roughly the same structure:
Before You Arrive — what the program is, who wrote it, when, on what machine, and the provenance of the specific source file being read (original listing, reconstruction, transcription, etc.)
The Map — the program's overall architecture at a glance
Districts — a tour through the major subsystems or regions of the source, with short code excerpts and commentary
★ DON'T MISS — callout boxes for the details worth the trip: revealing comments, clever hacks, period jokes, load-bearing oddities
A Day in the Life — one input, request, or frame traced end-to-end through the whole system
Practical Notes — the minimal language/machine primer needed to read the code yourself, plus pointers to runnable versions or emulators where they exist
What Makes It Worth Visiting — why this program, beyond the legend
Provenance and Sources / References — where the source file came from, which claims rest on the code itself versus historical accounts, and where interpretation was required
Ground rules
These guides aim to be accurate, not just evocative:
Claims about code behavior come from the code. Excerpts are quoted from the actual source under discussion, and behavioral claims should be checkable against it.
Provenance is stated up front. Many famous programs survive only as reconstructions, disassemblies, or later transcriptions. Each guide says exactly which witness it reads and what that implies.
History is attributed. Authorship, dates, and anecdotes are sourced to primary or standard secondary accounts, and conflicts between sources are noted rather than silently resolved.
Interpretation is flagged. Dense or self-modifying code sometimes requires a judgment call about what it's doing; guides say so instead of presenting readings as fact.
Modern analogies are labeled as analogies. Saying a 1962 routine resembles JIT compilation is illuminating; implying lineage or identity is not.
Reading and contributing
Each guide lives in its own directory alongside the source file(s) it reads (where licensing permits) and any supporting material. Guides are self-contained — start with whichever program interests you.
Corrections are especially welcome: factual errors,...