Timeline for Fewest (distinct) characters for Turing Completeness
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 19, 2021 at 13:31 | comment | added | Jo King♦ |
It's usually a lot shorter to split up each character into its own string and add them together at the end, e.g. print() in 141 bytes
|
|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Mar 3, 2019 at 20:30 | comment | added | mbomb007 | @MilkyWay90 True, but why not account for it if you can? | |
| Mar 3, 2019 at 3:50 | comment | added | MilkyWay90 | You wouldn't need a NUL byte for Turing Completeness; a BF interpreter can be written without one | |
| Jan 18, 2018 at 19:53 | comment | added | mbomb007 | @NieDzejkob On this site, the answer to "why" is always "because we can". In this case, though, it wouldn't be the full implementation of Python if you couldn't do it, even if it just gives an error. | |
| Jan 18, 2018 at 18:08 | comment | added | Maya | Why would you ever want a NUL byte in your program? | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:39 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/ with https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 20, 2017 at 18:45 | history | edited | mbomb007 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 188 characters in body
|
| Feb 20, 2017 at 18:39 | history | answered | mbomb007 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |