Timeline for Sandbox for Proposed Challenges
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
45 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 23, 2021 at 20:09 | history | undeleted | caird coinheringaahingMod | ||
| Apr 13, 2018 at 9:22 | history | deleted | caird coinheringaahingMod | via Vote | |
| Apr 13, 2018 at 9:22 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 11314 characters in body |
| Apr 12, 2018 at 14:10 | comment | added | Leo | Yeah, I can understand that. Well, if this challenge turns out to be well received that can be an idea for a follow up :) | |
| Apr 12, 2018 at 11:47 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 46 characters in body |
| Apr 12, 2018 at 11:38 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 80 characters in body |
| Apr 12, 2018 at 11:36 | comment | added | caird coinheringaahing Mod | @Leo While I do like that idea, I think that it's quite a different challenge to this one, so am going to stick to the current format. However, I, for one, would greatly enjoy a challenge like that, so feel free to make one if you want to. | |
| Apr 11, 2018 at 22:32 | comment | added | Leo | Ok, I know I'm late for this comment since you already put a lot of work into the interpreter, but I think it would have been more interesting having an initial language with very few/no commands, incapable of solving the given challenges, and letting answerers either golf previous solutions or make new challenges solvable. As it is right now this feels more like "golf this golfing language" than "build a golfing language" | |
| Apr 11, 2018 at 14:16 | comment | added | user202729 | But the scores are strictly decreasing anyway... | |
| Apr 11, 2018 at 13:19 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 423 characters in body |
| Apr 11, 2018 at 11:49 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 10 characters in body |
| Apr 11, 2018 at 11:29 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 815 characters in body |
| Apr 11, 2018 at 0:01 | comment | added | caird coinheringaahing Mod | @user202729 Obviously, if the user isn't active on the site, for whatever reason, they don't have to edit in the golfs. That rule is mainly in place to prevent people from posting Lenguage-esque solutions to make it easier for the next answerer. | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 15:09 | comment | added | user202729 | "you must edit in the golf" ==> [what if the answerer deletes their account? what if they're inactive? doesn't seem like a very good solution] | |
| Apr 10, 2018 at 11:43 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 9 characters in body |
| Apr 9, 2018 at 15:52 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 294 characters in body |
| Apr 8, 2018 at 13:11 | comment | added | Jo King | The total minimum bytes is 20 as far as I can tell. A quine will have to be 2 bytes, and the only 0 byte program can output Hello, World! as that golfs two challenges. Everything else can be 1 byte, though it will probably get soft-locked at 21 bytes | |
| Apr 5, 2018 at 15:52 | comment | added | caird coinheringaahing Mod | @KamilDrakari I'm currently working on a (almost finished) base interpreter, which will include a base level solution to each task, which I will post as the first answer. | |
| Apr 5, 2018 at 15:12 | comment | added | Kamil Drakari | Is the challenge itself going to include a base-level answer to every task, or will the first answer need to come up with 2 commands that are sufficient to solve every task (since no other commands would exist yet) as well as actually making those solutions? | |
| Apr 5, 2018 at 12:19 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | edited body |
| Apr 4, 2018 at 20:52 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 214 characters in body |
| Apr 4, 2018 at 17:02 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 100 characters in body |
| Apr 4, 2018 at 9:08 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Changed task 15 |
| Apr 3, 2018 at 14:30 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 252 characters in body |
| Apr 2, 2018 at 15:24 | comment | added | Riker | I'd go for "output the sign" vs "sum of 1-n", since you haev another "sum the input" challenge. | |
| Mar 31, 2018 at 16:16 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 297 characters in body |
| Mar 28, 2018 at 18:49 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 40 characters in body |
| Mar 26, 2018 at 4:15 | comment | added | Wheat Wizard Mod | @cairdcoinheringaahing I don't see that saying that challenges must have a winner, just that you must be able to objectively score yourself. "And the interesting thing that the score alone is enough to create this motivation - there doesn't even need to be competition". | |
| Mar 23, 2018 at 3:09 | comment | added | N. Virgo | Or another way to put it: your challenge already has a natural cutoff, namely the point where no more golfing is possible (i.e. one of the test challenges can be done in zero bytes and the rest in one byte each, if not before that point). It seems more natural and more fun to let it continue until it reaches that point, rather than cutting it off artificially. | |
| Mar 23, 2018 at 0:47 | comment | added | N. Virgo | "every answer-chaining has to have some way of preventing it from continuing ad infinitum" <--- why? And why would that apply to answer-chaining and not any other kind of challenge? | |
| Mar 22, 2018 at 22:02 | comment | added | dylnan | You can still have an objective scoring criterion but not declare a winner. You can decide to forgo meta discussions anyway. | |
| Mar 22, 2018 at 21:52 | comment | added | caird coinheringaahing Mod | @dylnan Challenges must have a winner to be on-topic | |
| Mar 22, 2018 at 21:50 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 194 characters in body |
| Mar 22, 2018 at 21:43 | comment | added | dylnan | @cairdcoinheringaahing maybe there should just be no winner. Then people won't be discouraged from continuing after one is declared | |
| Mar 22, 2018 at 19:27 | history | edited | caird coinheringaahingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 899 characters in body |
| Mar 22, 2018 at 17:12 | comment | added | caird coinheringaahing Mod | @Nathaniel Regarding the two week end, every answer-chaining has to have some way of preventing it from continuing ad infinitum. Answers can (and should) still be posted afterwards, just with the addendum that they can't win. | |
| Mar 22, 2018 at 13:45 | comment | added | N. Virgo | Also, I'm personally not a fan of the two week cutoff, and I was under the impression that time-limited challenges were a bit of an old-school thing that people don't really do any more. It prevents people from participating if they join the game late, and for no good reason. (By the way I like this challenge idea a lot.) | |
| Mar 22, 2018 at 13:43 | comment | added | N. Virgo | "It doesn't aim to complete one of the sample challenges in one command" seems a bit easy to work around. For example, you could make a command to output ello, World! without breaking this rule, or to store Hello, World! in a variable without printing it, etc. If you try to ban this, finding the right place to draw the line will probably be hard. | |
| Mar 20, 2018 at 7:25 | comment | added | Bubbler | Added simple descriptions for the rest of the challenges. | |
| Mar 20, 2018 at 7:18 | history | edited | Bubbler | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 1002 characters in body |
| Mar 19, 2018 at 14:41 | history | edited | Mr. Xcoder | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 1867 characters in body |
| Mar 19, 2018 at 14:41 | comment | added | Mr. Xcoder | As per Martin Ender's suggestion, I've added concise descriptions for the first 12 challenges, but I don't have time to finish the rest at this very moment. I feel like the post should be self-contained, having to read so many separate challenges is quite annoying. Feel free to rollback / edit according to your preferences. | |
| Mar 18, 2018 at 17:15 | comment | added | Mr. Xcoder | Although I'd personally enjoy such a challenge, I am afraid that the sub-tasks have little to no interaction between each other, so the post might be closed as off-topic for being a multi-part challenge, albeit the presence of the tag multiple-holes. How are you going to enforce It doesn't aim to complete one of the sample challenges in one command? Other than that, I don't think the winning criterion makes much sense here. Imo the answer that breaks the chain should win. | |
| Mar 18, 2018 at 17:05 | history | edited | Mr. Xcoder | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Grammar |
| Mar 18, 2018 at 16:51 | history | answered | caird coinheringaahingMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |