Title needed
Your task is to print the text Greetings, Earth!, with every letter repeated in place as many times as the most frequent byte in your code.
For example if your code was
print p
Since p appears twice you would need to print
GGrreeeettiinnggss,, EEaarrtthh!!
This is code-golf ...
"Greetings, Earth!" has 2 e's, a's, t's, and r's. There should be a letter that is repeated 3-4 times, and maybe a couple more letters that are 2 times
I'm not positive that would make it better, but it would definitely make it slightly harder
having a builtin for "take an array, multiply it times its transposed self, find the greatest sum of an offset diagonal, then divide the original array by that value" is ridiculous
I feel like the ongoing development of the golfing languages to include more and more builtins to mostly-solve common elements of challenges is driving some people away from the site. (I'm one of them)
@ATaco it's mostly not foresight. stuff like that seems to get added most often just after a challenge or two requires it, then it looks like foresight when the third such challenge appears
Personally I find challenges should be as pure as possible, so if five challenges in a row demand a particular set of input validation, then you can expect languages and golfers to eventually have countermeasures for it.
I think the site is seeing a lot fewer high-effort challenges today than it was a year or two ago.
maybe absolutely, definitely proportionally
cookie cutter challenges lead to more languages adding features for that particular shape of cookie, which leads to more people using those languages, more answers on those challenges. that leads to more such challenges as challenge-writers enjoy more answers and get dissuaded by few answers.
Personally, as I said before, I prefer more pure challenges. It feels a bit pointless to me to challenge someone to do mutliple complex tasks in the same challenge. Koths and such however I prefer a certain level of complexity.
All my languages were designed with my own personal enjoyment in mind, rather than solving challenges. Although RProgN2 is particularly good at Quining.
@ATaco Indeed, when Jelly doesn't have a cookie cutter advantage, it generally scores only about 30% better than APL and about 50% shorter than J (due to J mostly using 2-byte builtins).
I'm not sure what you mean by Unify the concept of golfing in vim, but it was really made because vim has some useful concepts that take way too many bytes. I thought that if you could use the concepts without the massive byte costs, you'd have a fun to use and unusual golfing language
So I compressed regexes and made shortcuts for things that were obnoxious in vim
And recently it's been more about extending things that vim can't do. For example, vim can't do some simple math stuff with counts that ends up being really nice in V. Or the count regex command
but I also haven't worked on it seriously in a long time
@Adám but seriously, it is almost completely unreadable. even compared to other golfing languages, the way the trains (links?) interact in it makes my brain twitch with every explanation added to some solution.
@Uriel The fixed valence of atoms obviates the need for parentheses. Other than that, it is basically just tacit APL (with harder-to-remember symbols). I do find it incredibly hard to read links that are of even modest length, though.
@Adám wait until some jelly questions starts on SO, then a PPCGer writes some real life software with it as an alpha version, and next thing you know avg salary for jelly developer is rocking the charts
Furthermore, non PPCGers usually view printing without print statement (what happens usually with implicit output golfing langs or workspaces langs) as "whaaaat?"
@ZacharĂ˝ I did try to learn perl and Ruby, but they looked so weird compared to python so I dropped. I wouldve tried lua, but I'm past the days where I thought JS is the easiest to write in