I think challenges are interesting when the content is meaningful and the problem is fun and nontrivial. I'd rather see an interesting challenge that can be solved in one byte by a golfing language than an uninteresting challenge in which Java is competitive.
The whole thing seems like a nonissue to me. But then again, I play to have fun, not to win the green check mark. Because I won't win the green check mark. And that's fine, I care very little.
I think the biggest reason to exclude golfing languages is not to make certain languages competitive. Java will never win, and Perl would frequently win. However, excluding golfing languages would help newer visitors feel like they can join our site and compete
I disagree. I don't think there's anything fundamentally off-putting about golfing languages. When I first joined the community I was actually really intrigued by them and it made me want to stay and learn more.
it seems like the most common use of golf langs is to scoop up easy to medium challenges that they have the right built ins and constructs to do directly
Wasn't there a user who quit once because of esolangs? I think one of the reasons they gave was that normal languages were being wrecked by esolangs, and they cited the 0-byte Stuck "Hello, World!" as an example.
I have found code-golf a fascinating pastime for several weeks now.
However, I’m already losing interest because the contests allow any language, and because of that it is pretty much impossible for anything other than J or GolfScript to get anywhere close to winning. As soon as I see a less-tha...
"But that's just the nature of the challenge. We're comparing apples to avocados, and deciding the winner based on the number of seeds. They're both still delicious"
The contents of this post are solicited opinion that I have been asked by a Code Golf moderator to share with you. I understand "If you don't like it, then GEETTT OOUUTT" applies here, so I have already submitted my account for deletion.
I joined Code Golf because the challenge of fulfilling ...
@Quill, I have a friend from Australia that uses hoolly doolly (not sure how you'd spell it) to mean "Oh my lord" or something to that effect. Have you heard this before?
@mınxomaτ Peter Taylor expressed concerns about the "reproduce-ability" of the actual binary code, which is exactly why size coding entries are scored by file size, not code size. I don't understand that sentence. Unless I misunderstood something, the problem is that the same source code could yield different machine code on different computers.
@mınxomaτ Well, I disagree with that. If you require source code, that source code has to provably generate the binary. If that cannot be verified, there's the reproducibility issue again.
@AlexA. As a hex dump would be my suggestion. They can be reverted to binaries pretty easily. However, I wouldn't impose a standard on the contestants.