The Nineteenth Byte

How did they manage to make "this is the song that doesn't end" part truly never ending

@Seggan I wrote a json parser in JS with one line: eval

user

12:46 AM

That's nothing, I once wrote a JS interpreter in one line: eval

@allxy This is so pointlessly evil I'm tempted to kick-mute you (not really) :p

Or should I say...pointlessly eval

Using eval to parse JSON is like using a loaded shotgun as a hammer when doing home renovation

DLosc

@RadvylfPrograms But hey, if you always carry your loaded shotgun with you, whereas you don't own a hammer and would have to drive to the store and buy one, the shotgun means you get the job done a lot quicker!

But everyone who uses JS has a hammer superglued to their right kidney

6

JSON.parse

But saving six bytes is buck more important than getting XSSed.

5

But JSON.parse is also significantly more performant, so it gives you more milliseconds remaining until your death to make more effective golfs

E.g., the shotgun hammer might tear down a wall significantly faster but you can tear down lots more walls at an above average pace by using a normal hammer, instead of just a couple of walls really quickly then bleeding to death

lyxal

12:56 AM

Why use a hammer when you can use something like a bulldozer /s

Alternatively, just vein mine the wall :p

Neil

@Seggan surely 1.6e-10 is valid in JSON as well as JSON5?

And we care about speed?

No, who said we care about speed

Well I did, but not as a terminal goal

Parsing the JSON faster gives you more time to work on bigger golfs.

Whch of course makes no sense since that only saves milliseconds but I am making metaphors about shotgun hammers instead of doing my math homework so doing sensible things isn't really to be expected from me in the first place

1:15 AM

Imagine doing work

user

You should also get your right kidney checked out, that can't be helping you

Seggan

2:11 AM

@Neil oh...

3:28 AM

> got another moderator to suspend him "For Science".

Source

DialFrost

3:40 AM

is this ready? codegolf.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2140/…

Yes.

New Posts

0

Q: Building spikes

Inspired by this building (United States Air Force Academy Cadet Chapel, Colorado) Your task is simple, given a non-negative integer n, output the spiked building to size n Size 1: ^ /|\ /.|.\ /..|..\ _______ Testcases 2 -> ^ ^ /|\/|\ /.|..|.\ /..|..|..\ __________ 7 -> ^ ^ ...

lyxal

3:54 AM

oh frick today marks my 4th year of code golfing

happy birthday to my account

Happy birthday :)

lyxal

Yes, I am indeed a 4 year old

you can tell by the fact I think that object . method () is a funny way to annoy your friends in java

it's valid, but looks horrible

5:06 AM

@lyxal r/softwaregore

5:38 AM

Math problem: Given any infinite non-repeating string, must there be infinitely many prefixes which don't match the regex /(.+)\1$/ ? Context: I need to verify some answers to my most recent challenge

5:59 AM

I think the latter is true for any infinite string that is not a repetition of a single character (I didn't fully grasp the former but I guess it roughly means what I'm thinking of)

@Bubbler the regex matches (partially) also strings like CGCCabcabcabcabc...

Here there are finitely many non-matching prefixes

Oh, didn't notice the lack of ^

Then what do you mean by non-repeating? Is it something like an n-ary representation of an irrational number?

6:15 AM

Everything here is downvoted

@Bubbler I think that they mean that no infinite suffix is a single string repeated forever.

@Bubbler yes, exactly

If only finitely many prefixes don't match the regex, then there must be some threshold k where every length beyond length k matches the regex. Not sure where to go from here, but my instinct says there must be some tail that has the same length of matches forever, resulting in a rational number

I forgot what it's called, but there's a sequence where the nth term is the number of times the tail of the series is repeated.

this I think?

6:32 AM

I found another sequence (this) that looks like a strong counterexample

3

I believe every prefix starting from length 6 has a repeating suffix, and yet it's not a repeating sequence

6:52 AM

My messy JS shows that to be true for the first <large number> terms.