Skip to main content
Code Golf

Return to Answer

added 242 characters in body
Source Link
AviFS
AviFS
  • 2.2k
  • 7
  • 9

#It is OK to Add an Explanation for SBCS1 languages

On the other hand, for the terse, SBCS (usually golf) languages – the fun ones! – the case is different. Think 05AB1E, Jelly, CJam, Pyth, Golfscript & even APL/J... Vim?! Many of them must be read by consulting the documentation for each character. More importantly, doing so is entirely unambiguous. For instance, see 05AB1E's codepage here. The first 5 lines:


1 The exact rule to categorize the class of languages I'm referring to is a work-in-progress. I'd appreciate any suggestions on improving it, but for now I think at least the idea is clear enough!

#It is OK to Add an Explanation for SBCS languages

On the other hand, for the terse, SBCS (usually golf) languages – the fun ones! – the case is different. Think 05AB1E, Jelly, CJam, Golfscript & even APL/J Many of them must be read by consulting the documentation for each character. More importantly, doing so is entirely unambiguous. For instance, see 05AB1E's codepage here. The first 5 lines:

#It is OK to Add an Explanation for SBCS1 languages

On the other hand, for the terse, SBCS (usually golf) languages – the fun ones! – the case is different. Think 05AB1E, Jelly, CJam, Pyth, Golfscript & even APL/J... Vim?! Many of them must be read by consulting the documentation for each character. More importantly, doing so is entirely unambiguous. For instance, see 05AB1E's codepage here. The first 5 lines:


1 The exact rule to categorize the class of languages I'm referring to is a work-in-progress. I'd appreciate any suggestions on improving it, but for now I think at least the idea is clear enough!
Source Link
AviFS
AviFS
  • 2.2k
  • 7
  • 9

#It is OK to Add an Explanation for SBCS languages

Above there's already a contradicting answer. I also put my own thoughts on allowing explanations for all languages which was ill-received. Here's I propose only for a certain class of languages:

I can see the case for disallowing the addition of explanations to more conventional & verbose languages like C/Python/Ruby/Haskell, as there's far greater ambiguity with explaining them. They don't require consulting an encyclopedia given reasonable familiarity with the language.

On the other hand, for the terse, SBCS (usually golf) languages – the fun ones! – the case is different. Think 05AB1E, Jelly, CJam, Golfscript & even APL/J Many of them must be read by consulting the documentation for each character. More importantly, doing so is entirely unambiguous. For instance, see 05AB1E's codepage here. The first 5 lines:

╔══════════╦═══════════════════╦════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ Command  ║  Elements Popped  ║                                     Description                                    ║
╠══════════╬═══════════════════╬════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ ǝ        ║  a,b,c            ║   Replace the element of 'a' at index 'c' with 'b'                                 ║
║ ʒ        ║  a                ║   Filter 'a'. Keep the elements where the result of the code is 1. Usage: ʒ CODE } ║
║ α        ║  a,b              ║   Absolute difference of 'a' and 'b'                                               ║
║ β        ║  a,b              ║   Convert 'a' from base 'b' (arbitrary)                                            ║
║ γ        ║  a                ║   Split 'a' into chunks of equal adjacent elements.                                ║
╚══════════╩═══════════════════╩════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

###Closing Case

An explanation in such languages usually just means pasting the definition of each character from the doc's help page or wiki. This may be done, and verified, with little to no expertise in the language and make a world of a difference, from impenetrable gobbledy-gook to perfect English.

Everyone trudges through the same braindead labor to understand a code-only answer in a language like O5AB1E, painstakingly looking up each symbol. If one person does the work for us, no one else has to!