> I think the size of the interpreter for Vyxal should be included in the scoring, if we're going to be really consistent about this. Code Golf categories are

> I think the size of the interpreter for Vyxal should be included in the scoring, if we're going to be really consistent about this. Code Golf categories are arbitrary anyways, and can be as strict or as permissible as the golf course designer likes. If you need the most raw representation of code size, how about a code golf category where you have to design the smallest physical computer that can perform a certain task? > Who can make it the smallest? I noticed that in Vyxel 2 the language allows you to grab arbitrary Python modules and make calls, but this doesn't seem to be available anymore in Vyxel 3. So I'm thinking you can make a smaller Vyxel 3 implementation than 2. Either way, both reference implementations are fairly large runtimes.