0
\$\begingroup\$

Say I have a language I'd love to use (like JavaScript for example), but there are tons of little pieces of functionality I'd love to modify built-ins with, like .peek() on arrays, or .isPrime() on numbers, etc. Assuming I kept a collection of utilities like this published on Github, would it be acceptable to write submissions like

JavaScript (using myutils.js), [...] bytes

[...]

Another follow-up question I have to this is, if it is allowed, would submissions like this typically be well-received or no?

Assuming the collection of modifications had intuitive naming-conventions that might conceivably be used in production code if developers weren't opposed to modifying built-ins (which is a completely separate holy war in JavaScript), I have a hard time classifying something like this as "cheating".

Thoughts?

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't see why this wouldn't be allowed, as long as you don't create short built-ins that exactly or almost exactly complete what is asked in a challenge after the challenge is posted/sandboxed. While that wouldn't technically be against the rules, I would expect a flood of downvotes if you do so. With that caveat, however, I believe it would be allowed to modify a language in this way (provided there's an implementation to run these built-ins, as @EriktheOutgolfer pointed out). \$\endgroup\$ – Gryphon Aug 4 '17 at 15:17
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ If there's an implementation for that then yes it's allowed. \$\endgroup\$ – Erik the Outgolfer Aug 4 '17 at 15:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Gryphon I can't seem to find the question, but there was a meta post a few days ago I read, there was talk of removing the policy of answering pre-existing challenges with new implementations. Reading the feedback given there, I do understand this caveat pretty well and I think I could avoid coming across as "cheating" in those cases by making sure my submissions don't use updates that were applied after-the-fact. \$\endgroup\$ – Patrick Roberts Aug 4 '17 at 15:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ As long as new built-ins don't solve most or all of a pre-existing (non-trivial) challenge, you should be good to go. \$\endgroup\$ – Gryphon Aug 4 '17 at 15:34
  • \$\begingroup\$ If you're specifically looking for a "golfier" version of JS with plenty of handy built-ins, might I recommend Japt? Github project, Interpreter, Chat room, Tips. EDIT: Not that I'm trying to discourage you from developing your own language, of course. \$\endgroup\$ – Shaggy Aug 6 '17 at 23:42

Browse other questions tagged .