Do you know what kind of algorithm it's using behind the scenes (including if its N, log(N), N*log(N), etc.)? When I run it in your TIO-link it states it only takes about 255-265 ms. Quite fast for something with a list of ALL squares up until 64 bits, AND checking if the input is part of it, imho. Then again, I'm used to Java, which isn't exactly known for its fast algorithms. :)

@KevinCruijssen Umm, Neim is actually written in Java.

@EriktheOutgolfer Really?.. Not in JVM but Java itself? Hmm.. I almost want to delete my comment and ask only the first part again: "Do you know what kind of algorithm it's using behind the scenes (including if its N, log(N), Nlog(N), etc.)? When I run it in your TIO-link it states it only takes about 255-265 ms. Quite fast for something with a list of ALL squares up until 64 bits, AND checking if the input is part of it, imho.*" :)

This might be the shortest answer, but probably the one that requires the most space

@TheDarkKnight I think mine uses more

@KevinCruijssen It runs very fast because the webserver itself is made using Java. Additionally, it doesn't calculate the full list, but only as much of it as needed. A program with q on its own will time out.

@Okx Ah ok, that indeed makes a lot more sense. Some kind of lazy-loading principle. Still pretty cool that there is a one-byte command for getting all squares.

@KevinCruijssen Behind the scenes, q is a shortcut for 4p, which means generate an infinite list of polygonal numbers with side length 4 which happen to be the square numbers.

@Okx I understand. It's usually that way with one-byte shortcuts for golfing. That single byte translates to a few more bytes, which in turn translates to the actual compiler-code. But it's still cool q is a single-byte command for it. I doubt even some of the other golfing languages like Jelly, 05AB1E, Pyth, CJam, Japt, etc. have a single-byte command to accomplish the same. Although they've got others in return that Neim has not. Ah well, now we are kinda having a chat.. TL;DR: +1, right tool for the right job. :)

@KevinCruijssen: "I doubt even some of the other golfing languages like Jelly, 05AB1E, Pyth, CJam, Japt, etc. have a single-byte command to accomplish the same" Unfortunately.... codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/125239/7017 ^^ (and I'm sure others in your list are there too)

@OlivierDulac By the same, he means 'push an infinite list of square numbers'.

lol, doesn't it feel like cheating to use languages just wrap more complex code? Don't get me wrong, it's neat - but it just feels like all of the PPCG answers now are "I used this language that has this already built in, therefore my answer is two characters long", but the "language" is just a wrapper of shortcuts that call very complex java code.

@RobertPetz Well, not really. First, you have to create the language, which takes a bit of effort. And, everyone else is doing it, how else do you expect me to win? :P

@Okx haha - to the language author it is definitely effort to make the language. But in reality the answer's length in bytes should be the length in bytes of the Java code it's referencing. I do agree though, it's pretty much spread through the entirety of here now so it's impossible to win without these code golfing languages haha. This comes to mind lol

@RobertPetz This is getting a bit chatty. If you want to continue, we can do so in a chat room.

@RobertPetz Almost all golfing languages are wrappers of other languages. What I like about most of these golfing languages like Jelly and 05AB1E is that they don't compete some challenges in low byte-count, but all of them. The designers of these languages really put some thought into them about which functionality to reduce to single-bytes (keep in mind there are only 256 single-bytes available). And with some challenges it's also the art of finding the perfect programming language for the challenge (from a list of existing programming languages).

@KevinCruijssen oh I definitely am not saying that they are illegitimate languages in their own right, and they definitely offer some seriously clever perspectives to certain problems. But once you get to a two byte answer where one byte just calls a Java method that has been pre-written in a way that basically answers the whole question then it's not clever. That's not golfing, that's just hitting the ball once and then asking someone else to put it in the hole for you when no one else is looking - sure you can technically put one stroke on your card, but did you really play the game?

but agreed about the length of this chat - too long for comments haha

@RobertPetz If you wish to continue, chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/60200/…

Once the BigInteger switch happens, will this still work?

@user2357112 Probably, and you'll be able to check higher numbers.

This answer is like a slap on the face

Well, it's a competition between languages

like, a different competition for each language

I know I am wrong but it seems a little bullshit that some god forsaken language from the deepest pits of programming magically has a one lettered function that does exactly what the OP asked.

and everyone seems to be talking about my answer because it's the highest vote on a hot network question ^_^

may i see it?

xD

lol

on that note. what's stopping me for creating a language which just conveniently has a function which does what op asked? and then submitting the answer.

it'll be non-competing and won't be able to win

but it IS a language

wait wait

hm?