Yesterday (probably the day before yesterday in some time zones), I decided to run an experiment on the "Fastest Gun In The West" phenomenon, in which early answers tend to get disproportionately rewarded compared to late answers.
My experiment involved this question, to which I posted two answers. For the first answer, in Underload, I intentionally aimed to post it as fast as possible (I had the answer ready about 10 minutes after I saw the question (I saw it about 10 minutes after it was posted)).
The second answer, in 7, was posted about 2½ hours after the first, and I had been working on it for most of that time.
I think the second answer is more or less objectively better than the first, in pretty much every dimension we care about:
The answers both belong to the same language family (concatenative low-level tarpit esolangs). So it's unlikely that the choice of language had a huge influence on the voting. Additionally, we can look at how well my answers in Underload and 7 normally do; Underload normally does fairly well, but 7 normally does better. So the first answer doesn't have an advantage in terms of language choice.
Additionally, I created both of the languages in question, so there's no potential bias in terms of language creator / people-golfing-in-their-own-language; the two answers are symmetrical this way.
The first answer took almost no thought to write. It was a case of "what's a language where I can quickly write a quine, cat program and string printer?". The latter two are builtins in Underload, and it is trivial to modify one of the two standard Underload quines,
(aS(:^)S):^(which I have memorised, as does probably every Underload golfer), to contain a payload (or in this case, some extra useless characters). I made it even easier by picking an interpreter which (non-standardly) treats unknown characters as no-ops. Generally speaking, the recommendations are to not upvote trivial builtin-based solutions (and we should probably recommend not upvoting "trivial modification to a standard program" solutions, too).
Contrasting with this, the second answer was much more difficult to write. Even printing a string literal has a range of subtleties in 7 (e.g. I spent a while pondering about whether there was a way to shorten it by somehow making use of the
6), and that was the easiest of the three programs to deal with. The quine took a while, because I'd never previously needed to fit a
6into a quine before (or indeed, created a quine that wasn't just two identical halves that printed each other or where one printed the other twice), and so I spent some time working out a quine template that could make it work. The cat program was a nightmare; 7 doesn't have a builtin for this. Reusable code in 7 is sufficiently context-dependent that it's hard to define what a function even is, meaning that I would need to read standard input explicitly, and 7 can only read a character at a time. So then I needed to construct a loop, in a low-level esolang that's very unintuitive and hard to reason about (probably worse than Brain-Flak). This involved inventing entire new programming techniques that I don't think have been used in 7 before (such as polyglotting the loop body with a literal constant integer).
Yet, despite all this, I managed to fit the cat and quine programs in using only two extra characters (a
6for the cat program and an additional
7for the quine program), costing only ¾ of a byte (which ends up rounding down to 0 because the original program length was slightly over a byte boundary).
So I consider the 7 answer to be much better-crafted, both in terms of effort (a lot more work is required to write something like that), and in terms of the golfing skill demonstrated by the solution, and it seems likely that people who upvote based on how impressive a program is would prefer the 7 program.
The Underload answer is vaguely cheaty: it trivialises the source-layout aspect of the problem simply by defining functions that output to standard output (meaning that we can do what we like to the function's return value with the extra characters we're forced to use), so it's basically just exploiting the I/O conventions. (The type of string that the program takes as input isn't even good for anything other than
evalor printing.) I needed to use an extra colon in it in order to compensate for the exclamation mark in the string (which would otherwise make the quine take an argument), but apart from that, the entire point behind the question gets ignored. In this sense, I consider it quite similar to answering a restricted-source question in Lenguage (or indeed a "do X without letters" question in 7), which shouldn't be considered that interesting or funny at this point. Additionally, the answer is interpreter-specific and won't work on most Underload interpreters, due to requiring a specific handling of invalid commands.
The 7 answer, meanwhile, complies with the spec comprehensively and in a way that fits the spirit of the question (we're reusing the characters from the string literal to write the other two programs, which is what the OP seems to have had in mind based on Sandbox comments, and indeed the quine uses up the entire supply of available
3s). There are no I/O exploits: we're writing full programs with input from standard input and output to standard output. So this is the sort of answer that, I suspect, fits the question particularly well.
When initially posted, the Underload answer didn't have an explanation. I added an explanation after it received 1 upvote (I didn't delay this intentionally; just tried to post as fast as possible and then started working on the explanation). The explanation is incredibly simple and straightforward and generally only helpful for people who don't already know Underload (because the programs are so simple and/or standard).
For the 7 answer, I posted the explanation at the same time as the answer. The programs are much more complex, so there's a lot more to explain, with all three programs needing extensive explanations of what they do and descriptions of what's going on internally (in fact, with two of the programs, I needed to explain not only the program itself, but also the behaviour of various strings that were constructed and
evaled during the program's execution). So there's much more that you can learn from the explanation than you can with the Underload program (and the explanation inherently needs to be much longer).
When initially posted, the Underload solution was incorrect. I was the first person to notice, and it had already received 5 upvotes at that point. (I've since fixed the solution, but at the cost of two bytes.) The problem is that I'd gotten confused about function/full program distinctions and I/O conventions, and accidentally written code that only works as a snippet (which is not allowed on CGCC). The fix was trivial (just add
()around each solution to make the sequence of instructions into a function literal), but it's at least mildly surprising to me that nobody noticed this. I probably would have gotten this right first time if I hadn't been rushing to make sure I got the first answer.
As far as I'm aware, the 7 answer has been correct ever since it was posted. (An initial version had a mistake – reordering the programs to reduce byte count of the encoding, I initially forgot that 7 "virtually" pads out programs with
7characters in order to round them up to a full byte, and thus writing a program that ends with
7would fail to obey the source-layout requirement because it wouldn't be part of the string that was seen by the interpreter. But I caught that while writing the explanation and fixed it before pressing the post button, rearranging the programs so that they all ended with some other character. If I'd been trying to FGITW with that answer, it would have been posted with the mistake in and probably nobody would have caught it for ages.)
What I expected would happen from this experiment is that the Underload answer (having been posted first and attracting a rush of early upvotes – it was at +5 when I posted the 7 answer) would likely stay at the top for a while (it's hard to dislodge the first-posted answer), but that the 7 answer would attract upvotes faster and eventually end up overtaking it, and I was interested to see how long that would take.
I think this phenomenon is doing actual damage to the site. Suppose that I were aiming primarily for reputation, as opposed to just golfing for fun (and/or to do experiments into how Stack Exchange behaves); note that the site tries to strongly push people into gaining reputation and/or badges. Posting answers like the Underload answer is a good way to get reputation, even though those answers don't add to the site much (indeed, I obtained a bronze badge from it even despite the community wiki mark on the post). Posting answers like the 7 answer is not a good way to get reputation, even though there was only a 2½ hour time difference! So the site is pushing people into posting answers that fulfil the question and have nothing inherently wrong with them (apart from, apparently, sloppy mistakes due to trying to post too quickly), and pushing people away from posting answers that put a lot of thought in and aim to solve the question particularly well.
(Note that one reason I community-wiki all my posts is to avoid being tempted to post answers like the Underload answer, rather than answers like the 7 answer. When there's no reputation at stake, there's no incentive to post lower-quality answers in order to gain it. I often post answers like the Underload answer anyway; but, with no reputation at stake, it makes sense to delay before posting it so that it doesn't accidentally get pinned to the top of the thread and end up distorting the voting long into the question's future.)
I'm not sure if there are any real conclusions to be drawn from all this, but I thought it was nonetheless worth posting the evidence and starting a discussion.
(EDIT: I just noticed that the question in question is on HNQ (I saw it on the site sidebar). This probably isn't too surprising, all things considered, but wanted to make note of the situation.)