Skip to main content
Code Golf

Return to Answer

add dc, per @seshoumara
Source Link
user62131
user62131

Stack-based concatenative languages, 4 characters

Underload

():^

GolfScript

{}.~

CJam

{}_~

GS2

  • backspace, tab, @, space (I knew GS2 used unprintables a lot, but this is ridiculous…)

dc (suggested by @seshoumara)

[]dx

Underload has been proven Turing-complete with only the use of ():^ (thanks to Esolang's resident mathematician Ørjan). The proof is far too long to explain here, but if you're interested, you can read about it here.

The commands in question are () (place code literal on the stack), : (duplicate top stack element), and ^ (evaluate top of stack). These commands are fairly common in stack-based languages (especially concatenative languages), and so I've given something of a collection of them above; these languages are all Turing-complete in 4 characters for the same reason as Underload.

Stack-based concatenative languages, 4 characters

Underload

():^

GolfScript

{}.~

CJam

{}_~

GS2

  • backspace, tab, @, space (I knew GS2 used unprintables a lot, but this is ridiculous…)

Underload has been proven Turing-complete with only the use of ():^ (thanks to Esolang's resident mathematician Ørjan). The proof is far too long to explain here, but if you're interested, you can read about it here.

The commands in question are () (place code literal on the stack), : (duplicate top stack element), and ^ (evaluate top of stack). These commands are fairly common in stack-based languages (especially concatenative languages), and so I've given something of a collection of them above; these languages are all Turing-complete in 4 characters for the same reason as Underload.

Stack-based concatenative languages, 4 characters

Underload

():^

GolfScript

{}.~

CJam

{}_~

GS2

  • backspace, tab, @, space (I knew GS2 used unprintables a lot, but this is ridiculous…)

dc (suggested by @seshoumara)

[]dx

Underload has been proven Turing-complete with only the use of ():^ (thanks to Esolang's resident mathematician Ørjan). The proof is far too long to explain here, but if you're interested, you can read about it here.

The commands in question are () (place code literal on the stack), : (duplicate top stack element), and ^ (evaluate top of stack). These commands are fairly common in stack-based languages (especially concatenative languages), and so I've given something of a collection of them above; these languages are all Turing-complete in 4 characters for the same reason as Underload.

Source Link
user62131
user62131

Stack-based concatenative languages, 4 characters

Underload

():^

GolfScript

{}.~

CJam

{}_~

GS2

  • backspace, tab, @, space (I knew GS2 used unprintables a lot, but this is ridiculous…)

Underload has been proven Turing-complete with only the use of ():^ (thanks to Esolang's resident mathematician Ørjan). The proof is far too long to explain here, but if you're interested, you can read about it here.

The commands in question are () (place code literal on the stack), : (duplicate top stack element), and ^ (evaluate top of stack). These commands are fairly common in stack-based languages (especially concatenative languages), and so I've given something of a collection of them above; these languages are all Turing-complete in 4 characters for the same reason as Underload.