Skip to main content
Commonmark migration
Source Link

###get is cheating, although the line is blurry

get is cheating, although the line is blurry

As mentioned in the OP, a prior thread about SMBF resulted in a clear consensus that using the tape values initialized to the source code character values was "cheating" and not a proper quine. It's a fairly strong consensus.

However, a different meta question about Javascript resulted in an equally strong consensus that printing the string representation of a function's source code is valid. The question then becomes, what makes these two different, and which one is get more like?

To put it simply, my interpretation of why the Javascript is valid is just because it accesses a string representation of a function not the program. At least, that's the only distinction I can see between the two. In none of the example programs do I see any indication that the source code of a function is read, but rather that the program's source code is available in full, just like SMBF. If we assume that both prior consensuses are still valid, then get must follow the SMBF precedent.

###get is cheating, although the line is blurry

As mentioned in the OP, a prior thread about SMBF resulted in a clear consensus that using the tape values initialized to the source code character values was "cheating" and not a proper quine. It's a fairly strong consensus.

However, a different meta question about Javascript resulted in an equally strong consensus that printing the string representation of a function's source code is valid. The question then becomes, what makes these two different, and which one is get more like?

To put it simply, my interpretation of why the Javascript is valid is just because it accesses a string representation of a function not the program. At least, that's the only distinction I can see between the two. In none of the example programs do I see any indication that the source code of a function is read, but rather that the program's source code is available in full, just like SMBF. If we assume that both prior consensuses are still valid, then get must follow the SMBF precedent.

get is cheating, although the line is blurry

As mentioned in the OP, a prior thread about SMBF resulted in a clear consensus that using the tape values initialized to the source code character values was "cheating" and not a proper quine. It's a fairly strong consensus.

However, a different meta question about Javascript resulted in an equally strong consensus that printing the string representation of a function's source code is valid. The question then becomes, what makes these two different, and which one is get more like?

To put it simply, my interpretation of why the Javascript is valid is just because it accesses a string representation of a function not the program. At least, that's the only distinction I can see between the two. In none of the example programs do I see any indication that the source code of a function is read, but rather that the program's source code is available in full, just like SMBF. If we assume that both prior consensuses are still valid, then get must follow the SMBF precedent.

Source Link
Kamil Drakari
  • 4.4k
  • 7
  • 14

###get is cheating, although the line is blurry

As mentioned in the OP, a prior thread about SMBF resulted in a clear consensus that using the tape values initialized to the source code character values was "cheating" and not a proper quine. It's a fairly strong consensus.

However, a different meta question about Javascript resulted in an equally strong consensus that printing the string representation of a function's source code is valid. The question then becomes, what makes these two different, and which one is get more like?

To put it simply, my interpretation of why the Javascript is valid is just because it accesses a string representation of a function not the program. At least, that's the only distinction I can see between the two. In none of the example programs do I see any indication that the source code of a function is read, but rather that the program's source code is available in full, just like SMBF. If we assume that both prior consensuses are still valid, then get must follow the SMBF precedent.