0
\$\begingroup\$

I am trying to figure out how to write a good question. I have found that there are basically 3 2 types of acceptable answers (really only probably 1 as of today):

  • Playing a game.
  • Shortest in x language.
  • Popularity contest.

I was wondering though if it would be acceptable to limit it to a specific language, and limit it to only the core language primitives. In x86 assembly, this would mean not calling to external libraries with call. In JavaScript this would mean only using var, if, while, etc.

Or perhaps you could list what languages are acceptable, i.e. "this can be done in x86, JavaScript, C, or Python", to give it more range but at the same time prevent the "shortest in x language" problem.

By doing so, the winning condition can be the fewest instructions or statements (statements would need to be defined for each language). Instructions is already clearly defined for Assembly. There is an actual number associated with the amount of primitive constructs used, which could be the score.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ What do you mean by "shortest in x language" problem? \$\endgroup\$
    – Dennis
    Jul 6 '18 at 3:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Dennis I put a description in the link \$\endgroup\$ Jul 6 '18 at 3:51
  • \$\begingroup\$ I know what you mean by "shortest in x language". Why is it a problem? \$\endgroup\$
    – Dennis
    Jul 6 '18 at 3:56
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Dennis Not really a problem, just that {the OP} doesn't like it. \$\endgroup\$
    – DELETE_ME
    Jul 6 '18 at 4:22
7
\$\begingroup\$

This is

From the tag description of atomic code golf:

Atomic code golf asks you to solve a task using only a limited set of operations, with as few of these operations as possible.

Which is what you are describing.


It's also important to note that atomic code golf tends to work best when there is only one language involved. This allows the OP to define the scoring mechanic in an objective, and predictable way.

\$\endgroup\$
6
  • \$\begingroup\$ @LancePollard Although it's on-topic I think that there won't be too many participants, because not many people know that language. \$\endgroup\$
    – DELETE_ME
    Jul 6 '18 at 4:22
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @user202729 If you're talking about Assembly, it depends on the type. There are simple assembly types, such as Redcode that have gotten good responses. \$\endgroup\$
    – mbomb007
    Jul 6 '18 at 18:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mbomb007 I suppose OP was talking about x86 assembly. For small made-up languages (or Turing tarpit) they're more well-received (because they're easier to learn) \$\endgroup\$
    – DELETE_ME
    Jul 7 '18 at 4:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mbomb007 Looking at OP's past challenge and challenges in the sandbox, it looks like that it's not the case. \$\endgroup\$
    – DELETE_ME
    Jul 7 '18 at 6:46
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ All languages are "made-up" \$\endgroup\$
    – mbomb007
    Jul 8 '18 at 2:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mbomb007 But not all languages are "small"... \$\endgroup\$
    – DELETE_ME
    Jul 17 '18 at 9:10

You must log in to answer this question.

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