2
\$\begingroup\$

Justification of user-created languages to gain an advantage in the future

On my question, Rolling the Dice, I received this answer.

In it @zocky asked about the justification of using ultra-short languages specifically designed for code golf to win challenges.

On my question wasn't really the right place to post the question, but seeing as how he has a point, I am re-asking it on meta.

My question is this:

Why should we allow people to make their own languages to solve problems?

I know we have rules like languages have to be pre-existing, have an interpreter, etc. but what justifies the use of languages built to be ultra-short? Like why should we not be constrained to languages that are used elsewhere?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ IIRC, that language violates a standard loophole. \$\endgroup\$ – Conor O'Brien Dec 17 '15 at 21:18
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ That particular language is particularly invalid. It's entirely based on this standard loophole: loading data from an external source to solve the challenge. Plus, it won't ever be valid except when one challenge is an exact duplicate of an existing one, since it nearly always requires changes to made to the interpreter after the challenge is posted. \$\endgroup\$ – ETHproductions Dec 17 '15 at 21:19
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ They don't need justification. Languages are allowed unless they specifically aren't. That one specifically isn't because any working interpreter would have to be updated after the question is posted. \$\endgroup\$ – undergroundmonorail Dec 17 '15 at 21:19
  • \$\begingroup\$ @CᴏɴᴏʀO'Bʀɪᴇɴ I know. That one in particular is very invalid, but the point he makes is not. \$\endgroup\$ – Rɪᴋᴇʀ Dec 17 '15 at 21:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ @ETHproductions Yes, I informed zocky of that. \$\endgroup\$ – Rɪᴋᴇʀ Dec 17 '15 at 21:21
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ Seems like a variation of MetaGolfScript, which is also forbidden \$\endgroup\$ – AdmBorkBork Dec 17 '15 at 21:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ @undergroundmonorail I know, but I didn't say golfing langs are disallowed. (in my post) \$\endgroup\$ – Rɪᴋᴇʀ Dec 17 '15 at 21:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ @RikerW I feel like I'm misunderstanding the question, then. You asked why languages for code golfing are allowed, and the reason is "we haven't banned them". \$\endgroup\$ – undergroundmonorail Dec 17 '15 at 21:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ I am not meaning to say that golfing langs should be disallowed, I mean to collect reasons why you are allowed to write your own language. \$\endgroup\$ – Rɪᴋᴇʀ Dec 17 '15 at 21:26
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Okay, I think I understand a little bit better. You're not asking "what rule allows this" so much as you are "what are the reasons this decision was made", right? \$\endgroup\$ – undergroundmonorail Dec 17 '15 at 21:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ YES!!!! I am thinking something like "If they take the time and do the work to create a language, they can use it." \$\endgroup\$ – Rɪᴋᴇʀ Dec 17 '15 at 21:29
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ In either case I think the answer is going to be very similar ("we allow languages by default and there's no reason to ban you from writing your own") but I see where you're coming from now. \$\endgroup\$ – undergroundmonorail Dec 17 '15 at 21:29
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ This topic, and topics directly related, have been discussed many times before. Relevant posts include meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/286/42963 ... meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/6983/42963 ... meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/630/42963 ... meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/185/42963 \$\endgroup\$ – AdmBorkBork Dec 17 '15 at 21:30
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Why do they need to be "justified"? That's like saying "Okay, nobody's allowed to use C# here until we figure out a good reason to allow it." \$\endgroup\$ – Doorknob Dec 17 '15 at 21:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ Edited my question, reread please. "Justify" was a bad word choice. I mean to ask why custom languages can be created to win challenges. \$\endgroup\$ – Rɪᴋᴇʀ Dec 17 '15 at 21:36
11
\$\begingroup\$

Why should we allow people to make their own languages to solve problems?

Why not?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 8
    \$\begingroup\$ Perhaps qualify with "as long as no standard loopholes are violated in the process"? \$\endgroup\$ – Alex A. Dec 17 '15 at 22:43
5
\$\begingroup\$

A language is a language

There's nothing that makes one language better than another, except for the sort of things in the Standard Loopholes.

Why should we allow people to make their own languages to solve problems?

Because once someone's made a language, it's just as good as any other. PPCG doesn't discriminate based on outside popularity, and I think that's a good thing.

\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

Every language has its first users

APL seemed quite esoteric to most people. It has some weird symbols like ⍋ for sorting, ⍉ for transpose, ⍣ for repetition, ⌊ and ⌈ for rounding down and up. The last two also had some weird names like floor and ceiling... weird only if they weren't accepted by more people and didn't become the standard mathematical symbols nowadays.

\$\endgroup\$
3
\$\begingroup\$

Because if people do the work and make a language, they can use it.

I thought for a bit and decided on this. If people take the time and effort to make their own language, they can use it.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ -1. People should also be able to use golfing languages that others have designed; there's no special privilege to the language designer. \$\endgroup\$ – lirtosiast Dec 18 '15 at 0:22
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasKwa I don't think that's what he is insinuating at all. \$\endgroup\$ – Mego Dec 18 '15 at 2:42

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