« first day (88 days earlier)      last day (489 days later) » 

14:16
12
Q: Let's allow newer languages/versions for older challenges

Martin EnderI've been thinking for a long time that our non-competing policy for newer languages (or language versions) is harmful. Just for context, we currently require all answers which require implementations that are newer than a challenge to be marked as non-competing. At the core there was a good inte...

It looks like this is gaining traction
I don't know if @ais523 wants to go with the site policy if it changes or stand his ground
14:33
I'd love it if the site policy changed
imagine how much bigger we could make the polyglot :-)
depending on the details of the rules, we might potentially need to ban A Pear Tree, though (which was created specifically for this challenge)
I could finally ask dennis to pull the newest verison of Wise
I could fix Moorhens bugs
This actually would be pretty nice
14:58
@WheatWizard That would be great. Feels like a breath of fresh air.
Could use new surface interpreter without any reservations.
@ais523 Post says "Many of our most-answered challenges ... already override the non-competing policy explicitly ..."
I am confused - if you disagree with this policy why don't you just explicitly allow new interpreters for this challenge?
 
1 hour later…
16:15
the policy exists for a reason (to avoid loopholes), any replacement would likely address the same issue another way
and "most-answered challenges" is very precise wording, it's referring specifically to the catalogue challenges; despite being widely-answered they're rather controversial, with many people thinking they're inappropriate for the site
one of my least favourite things about PPCG is the way that people will try to intentionally misinterpret things in order to be able to post an answer that they think would be funny or amusing (I'm guilty of this too, although I think my answer did fit within the wording of the question…)
also I'm getting increasingly convinced that the only reason PPCG works is that its rules, while well-thought out individually, contradict each other and people selectively enforce them
 
4 hours later…
20:20
@WheatWizard (Talking about specific case of changing preexisting interpreter with the newly created one or new version of the old one)
What if using new interpreter was allowed provided that all the answers (old and newly created) are required to work in both interpreters identically.
That is, new answers must not use peculiarities of the new interpreter (or new version of the interpreter).
Would that resolve your problems with Wise/Moorhens?
Both the Wise and Moorhens interpreters have fatal bugs that will cause them to crash in certain instances, right now we have to go out of our way to avoid them.
@WheatWizard Ok, got it. So your intention is to break forward compatibility (to stop getting around those bugs in new answers which will cause old interp fail on new answers).
Yes
I just want to fix bugs that exist in those interpreters
20:40
I have to admit, I have mixed feelings about this proposal for answer-chaining challenges
say I create a language that trivially outputs the next answer in the polyglot and add it.
I may get down voted for unsportsmanlike like conduct.
But my trivial answer get's perpetuated, as though it were valid.
With respect to this challenge, it feels as though it would diminish the authenticity.
Thats still a loophole though.
Designing a language intended to target a specific challenge is a standard loophole
ok. I suppose that's easy enough to enforce
Hopefully no one tries to get sneaky
 
1 hour later…
21:52
@Chance the whole reason the site-wide rule in question is there is to stop people doing that; we're hoping to replace it with a rule that stops people doing that a different way

« first day (88 days earlier)      last day (489 days later) »