Is "assembled" golflang code acceptable? [duplicate]

Question

Recently, I have been thinking about creating golflang assemblers. Like assemblers, they just substitute a mnemonic(or a word) with the actual symbol. Since many golflangs aren't much more comprehensible than binary, it could use assembly-like programs to ease the coding. I know this makes golflangs easier to use and might make code golf more pointless for some non-golflang golfers. However, there have been tons of previous discussions on how meaningful using a golflang is, and I think using "assemblers" doesn't change that, because it's the logic that makes good answers, not the effort you put in the mundane process of finding the right functions. However, I'd still like to see what the community says. What do you think, guys?

Edit: In case the question's not clear enough, it's sort of like asking whether using assemblers is acceptable in a competition that asks you to submit machine code.

Answer 1

To put the clarified question in my own words:

May I use a source-to-source compiler to generate my submission?

Yes, by all means. There are already answers on this site which have been generated by meta-golfing programs, and there's no controversy about that.

Answer 2

Yes.

I don't see much difference in a program that converts one representation of a program into another and the (manual) process people use to score LabVIEW programs as it applies to the score an entry receives. In fact, it is possibly more fair than the latter, since we can be sure that a fully-executable program is representable in that many bytes.

As to the question of whether it is okay to "remove a significant difficult in writing golflang answers", I think most people find that whole "look through lists of symbols to find the one that means the thing you want to do" the least interesting part of golfing. The fun part is writing the simplest program that performs the required task, and I feel that most people would embrace the opportunity to forgo the boring/annoying part.

In fact, since this may not add much to an opinion about whether entries in one language may be compiled to from another, I will generalize this:

If a language allows its programs to be represented in multiple different forms, you may score the most compact form while posting as an explanation the expanded/mnemonic form. This is what is done with LabVIEW, for instance. In the case of an assembler from one language to another, you can score the language you've assembled to, while posting as an explanation the (presumably easier-to-understand) one you've assembled from.