4 ms·

Even though I got a laugh out of it, I propose we change the definition of esoteric programming languages to require more creativity from their designer than re

by michh 12y ago

Even though I got a laugh out of it, I propose we change the definition of esoteric programming languages to require more creativity from their designer than reimplementing brainfuck with different tokens for the operators.

guard-of-terra 12y ago
This. Flagged the submission.
- ihuman 12y ago
  Why are you flagging this? Flagging is for topics that are "spam or offtopic."
  - guard-of-terra 12y ago
    Is it on topic?
    - mtrpcic 12y ago
      Somebody wrote a new language/turing machine based off of pop culture, I'd say that's pretty on-top for HackerNews.
      - jlouis 12y ago
        So, by your point of view, I should be able to submit the "Moo!" or "Ook!" esoteric languages which are exactly like this one? I find Groot to be entirely uninteresting. Look up Homespring or Flip :)
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > So, by your point of view, I should be able to submit the "Moo!" or "Ook!" esoteric languages which are exactly like this one? Yes, and they'd be on-topic. Though Zombie [0], from the same creator as Ook!, is probably more interesting. [0] http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/zombie.html http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/zombie.html
aortega 12y ago
Is not based in brainfuck, its a turing machine, and both look that way because any less instructions are not enough for programming a digital computer.
- Retra 12y ago
  Converting from groot to brainfuck requires simply a 1-1 command translation. It doesn't matter if these are turing machine operations, the point is that there is nothing 'esoteric' about writing down what a turing machine does using a language that everyone already knows. If I rewrote C to use BEGIN and END instead of { and }, then that's not inventing an esoteric language, but new syntax for an existing language.
- tel 12y ago
  The type of abstract syntax trees of this language and brainfuck are isomorphic. There are lots of definitions of what a "Turing Machine" is. If we take the one on Wikipedia as canon it isn't the same as this. In particular, a Turing Machine is a model while both Brainfuck and Groot are languages. It's easy to see how each of these languages is directly translated into a Turing Machine model (providing them a choice of semantics). Indeed, due to their isomorphism we need only translate one of them to have a faithful translation of the other "for free". Better yet, Brainfuck and Groot both have a privileged semantic model which is more or less identically a Turing Machine (except Brainfuck merely specifies that the tape is at least 30,000 bytes long and Groot mentions site not at all while Turing Machines are explicitly infinite). So, they're really closely related to a Turing Machine but honestly separate things more closely related to one another (via isomorphism) than to TMs directly (via semantic mapping).
- sxp 12y ago
  You only need one instruction for a computer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_instruction_set_computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_instruction_set_computer

by michh 12y ago

guard-of-terra 12y ago

This. Flagged the submission.

ihuman 12y ago
Why are you flagging this? Flagging is for topics that are "spam or offtopic."
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  Is it on topic?
  - mtrpcic 12y ago
    Somebody wrote a new language/turing machine based off of pop culture, I'd say that's pretty on-top for HackerNews.
    - jlouis 12y ago
      So, by your point of view, I should be able to submit the "Moo!" or "Ook!" esoteric languages which are exactly like this one? I find Groot to be entirely uninteresting. Look up Homespring or Flip :)
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > So, by your point of view, I should be able to submit the "Moo!" or "Ook!" esoteric languages which are exactly like this one? Yes, and they'd be on-topic. Though Zombie [0], from the same creator as Ook!, is probably more interesting. [0] http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/zombie.html http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/zombie.html

aortega 12y ago

Is not based in brainfuck, its a turing machine, and both look that way because any less instructions are not enough for programming a digital computer.

Retra 12y ago
Converting from groot to brainfuck requires simply a 1-1 command translation. It doesn't matter if these are turing machine operations, the point is that there is nothing 'esoteric' about writing down what a turing machine does using a language that everyone already knows. If I rewrote C to use BEGIN and END instead of { and }, then that's not inventing an esoteric language, but new syntax for an existing language.
tel 12y ago
The type of abstract syntax trees of this language and brainfuck are isomorphic. There are lots of definitions of what a "Turing Machine" is. If we take the one on Wikipedia as canon it isn't the same as this. In particular, a Turing Machine is a model while both Brainfuck and Groot are languages. It's easy to see how each of these languages is directly translated into a Turing Machine model (providing them a choice of semantics). Indeed, due to their isomorphism we need only translate one of them to have a faithful translation of the other "for free". Better yet, Brainfuck and Groot both have a privileged semantic model which is more or less identically a Turing Machine (except Brainfuck merely specifies that the tape is at least 30,000 bytes long and Groot mentions site not at all while Turing Machines are explicitly infinite). So, they're really closely related to a Turing Machine but honestly separate things more closely related to one another (via isomorphism) than to TMs directly (via semantic mapping).
sxp 12y ago
You only need one instruction for a computer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_instruction_set_computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_instruction_set_computer