-22
\$\begingroup\$

I invented a new programming language, called CodeGolfSolver. When running a program, it converts the characters to digits in base 1114111, interprets it as a number, and solves the problem described at the url codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/< number in base 10 here > at the date depending upon the version (see note). in an optimal manner. Example Program

This program is capable of detecting the heartbleed exploit. My question is: Are we allowed to use the programming language CodeGolfSolver to solve challenges on this site.

Note: There are different versions. For example, CodeGolfSolver-2014-4-12 is based on the codegolf site as of 2014/4/12. Compilers and intrepreters are recommended to make copies of the site for each version they support.

Note: This post itself is an interpreter in the English programming language. It is freely available.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ No. This is a variant of a well-known cheat which we do not allow. \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Jester-Young Apr 12 '14 at 17:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ChrisJester-Young Fixed \$\endgroup\$ – PyRulez Apr 12 '14 at 17:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ChrisJester-Young not to mention it just fetches the question, not any of the answers when you download a complier or intrepreter. \$\endgroup\$ – PyRulez Apr 12 '14 at 17:49
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't really understand these "Look at me!!! How smart I am" answers. Noone cares if you think you found a loophole. They are just guidelines. We are not lawyers here - You'll get downvoted anyway. To me these answers are just saying "Look at me - I'm too stupid to write real answers but I'm craving attention" \$\endgroup\$ – gnibbler Apr 13 '14 at 18:59
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Possible duplicate of Loopholes that are forbidden by default \$\endgroup\$ – pppery Jun 15 at 4:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ @pppery Just imagine what can happen if somebody answers this heavily downvoted question from 2014! \$\endgroup\$ – my pronoun is monicareinstate Jun 15 at 8:45
18
\$\begingroup\$

... could you just use common sense?


If you seriously actually need an enumeration of why exactly this is invalid (which I doubt):

  • you need to provide a working, freely available interpreter, which means solving every single challenge on the site
  • languages (including versions of languages) created after the challenge are invalid
  • it's cheating (obviously) and you'll get showered in downvotes
  • it also violates one of the "standard loopholes," specifically https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1085/3808
| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ So GHC 7.8.1 would be invalid for some of the challenges? \$\endgroup\$ – PyRulez Apr 12 '14 at 17:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ @PyRulez What is GHC 7.8.1...? \$\endgroup\$ – Doorknob Apr 12 '14 at 17:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ A dialect of haskell, sort of. It is the newest GHC compiler for haskell. It was recently released. \$\endgroup\$ – PyRulez Apr 12 '14 at 17:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ Also, I added an interpreter. \$\endgroup\$ – PyRulez Apr 12 '14 at 18:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ Also, for point 4, it is part of the language itself. \$\endgroup\$ – PyRulez Apr 12 '14 at 18:04
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ There is also a rule for point 2: meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/1061/… \$\endgroup\$ – A.L Apr 15 '14 at 12:46
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Just to clarify this for the OP: if you decided to write a new language with a builtin for every single challenge submitted to PPCG so far, and actually succeeded in implementing it, it'd be a pretty interesting and valid golfing language — but it wouldn't automatically expand to cover newly submitted challenges, and might or might not be competitive on them (although you can probably do some pretty crazy things using only PPCG challenges as builtins). \$\endgroup\$ – user62131 Jun 6 '17 at 18:07
1
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, it's fine

If you can implement an interpreter that can parse a description of a problem in English and solve it, go ahead. But I think you'd have to count the description of the problem in the byte count.

The actual loophole that's implicitly being violated here though is https://codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1071/30512 - you can't use a version of an interpreter newer than the problem.

| |
\$\endgroup\$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .