November 04, 2019 • 6 min read

Recursion is one of those concepts in programming which have always been incredibly fascinating to me. What do you mean that I can call the function from the function itself?

Well, there is a class of programs that bring the whole idea of recursion to a completely different level, which is programs that are able to replicate themselves. These programs, named Quines, produce a copy of their own source code as their only output.

The name “quine” was introduced by Douglas Hofstadter in Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid in honor of Willard Van Orman Quine, an American analytic philosopher who made extensive studies in the field of self-reference. There is a paradox named after him that goes:

“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation” yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.

This is a more elaborate version of the Liar paradox, where the sentence Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation , when preceded by itself in quotation marks, gives a new expression. If this new expression is true, then it says of itself that it must be false. But if it’s false, then what it says of itself must be true.

Pretty puzzling, huh?

Some rules

Before we start and try to write a Quine, we have to define some ground rules:

The program must produce its own source code when executed

It must not use I/O to read its own source code

It must not be an empty program

A first attempt

If we had this simple Ruby program:

puts "hello"

And we executed it, we would get:

$ ruby quine.rb hello

So we could make our program to look like this:

puts "puts \"hello\""

But running that would only yield:

$ ruby quine.rb puts "hello"

As we can see, this approach won’t get us closer to the solution since we’re always going to miss the outer puts .

A bit of self reflection

Luckily in Ruby there is a simple way to escape this using Object#inspect :

src = "puts src" puts "src = " + src . inspect

$ ruby quine.rb src = "puts src"

But we’re still missing the last line. What if we added the src again to the end of our puts statement, but this time as a normal string?

src = "puts src" puts "src = " + src . inspect + src

$ ruby quine.rb src = "puts src" puts src

Uh! Since the contents of the src string don’t really matter to the behaviour of our program, we can get quite creative with it!

src = "

puts \"src = \" + src.inspect + src" puts "src = " + src . inspect + src

$ ruby quine.rb src = "

puts \"src = \" + src.inspect + src" puts "src = " + src.inspect + src

Tada! 🎉

How to write your own Quine

This simple example showed us some of the core ideas for writing a Quine:

We build the program in two parts, one that we call the code and one that we call the data. The data part of the program is derived from the code part, usually by some means of escaping.

When executed, the code first uses the data to print the data.

Then the code uses the data to print the code. This is generally easy because we intentionally derived the data from the code.

A great analogy of a Quine comes from cellular biology: if we think of the cell as the code and the cell’s DNA as the data, then we’ll see that the cell is able to replicate itself using the DNA, and this process involves replicating the DNA itself. On the other hand the DNA contains all the information for replicating the cell, but without the cell itself it would just be an inert piece of data.

Quine Quine

Douglas Hofstadter also invented the verb to quine, which means “to write something a first time, and then to write it a second time with quotation marks around it”. For example, if we quine “say”, we would get “say ‘say’“. If we were to quine “quine”, we would get “quine ‘quine’”, which itself is a quine…

Testing, testing, testing

When you’re trying to write your own Quine, you’ll get to a point when you think you’ve reached a solution, but end up having to compare two printouts which are not exactly human friendly. So you can use this bit of Bash instead:

$ diff quine.rb < ( ruby quine.rb ) && echo "IS QUINE" IS QUINE

If you had make a mistake, it would print the diff like this:

$ diff wrong.rb < ( ruby wrong.rb ) && echo "IS QUINE" 2c2 < puts "src = " + src.inspect + src --- > puts src = " + src.inspect + src

The weird looking <() is a Bash feature called process substitution that allows you to pass one command’s output to another program as if it were a file name.

A Quine in Haskell

Here is a very elegant solution in Haskell:

main = putStr src >> print src where src = "main = putStr src >> print src

where src = "

This works thanks to the where notation, where you can use a variable in an expression before defining it. We first print the code using the normal putStr function, then we print the data using print , which maintains the double quotes around the string. The beauty of this solution is that the data is barely escaped!

Here it is in action:

$ ghc quine.hs [ 1 of 1 ] Compiling Main ( quine.hs, quine.o ) Linking quine .. . $ diff quine.hs < ( ./quine ) && echo "IS QUINE" IS QUINE

A Quine in Elm?

We can almost directly port our Ruby code to Elm. The only challenge is that browsers don’t usually recognize newlines literally, so that makes escaping code quite daunting. But fear not, thanks to the amazing powers of CSS and the white-space property, we can make the browser behave:

span { white-space : pre ; font-family : monospace ; }

The other challenge is to be able to inspect the data in a literal way: this can be achieved in Elm using the Debug#toString function.

So I challenge you to write your own implementation of a Quine in Elm. If you get stuck at any point, you can check this working example on Ellie.

Happy Quining!

References