Timeline for Program that creates larger versions of itself (quine-variant)
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Dec 6, 2018 at 11:34 | comment | added | user77406 |
@wchargin Now we need an answer for the ld(1) interpreter...
|
|
| Jan 3, 2017 at 13:30 | comment | added | wchargin |
@V-X: Easy, then: this is not a java(1) program, but rather a program for the javac(1) interpreter! :-)
|
|
| Feb 24, 2014 at 23:40 | comment | added | corsiKa | @blabla999 I disagree - people don't try these challenges because someone else does something crazy. We just challenge ourselves to do it some other way. As Mark Rosewater says, "Restrictions breed creativity" | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 8:25 | comment | added | V-X | Are you sure that the program itself printed the output? Wasn't that only the compiler? The program gets never compiled and itself is not interpreted nor executed, thus it wasn't able to produce any output. | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 7:47 | comment | added | blabla999 | the problem with this kind of "smartass" solutions is that they severy reduce the motivation for others to think and send inspiring answers. And that is what its all about here, isn't it? | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 5:40 | history | edited | Justin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fix typo
|
| Feb 23, 2014 at 22:54 | comment | added | Jason C | +1 I had a similar idea (I was trying to do it with GCC but GCC has the difficulty of stopping after unrecoverable errors). The rules don't specify that source code must be valid. The "useless" term in the rule is also very ambiguous (see my comment on answer). | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 21:50 | comment | added | Justin | @PyRulez This would be a good answer for your other question, but that was closed (and I voted to close it) :-). | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 21:46 | comment | added | Christopher King | Except that I don't care if you exploited it. Another vague rule counts you out! Yeah! (You are going to try to exploit all my questions now, aren't you?) | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 21:40 | comment | added | Justin | @PyRulez That's right. I exploited your rules. You don't need to accept this answer. When I posted this, I knew that a controversy would follow, complete with many up and down votes. I decided that it would be worth it, though. | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 21:38 | comment | added | Christopher King | But the output is also useless. You see, I make questions exploit proof by including unclear words, so when people try to exploit, instead of admitting it, I can just exploit it myself. | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 21:35 | comment | added | Justin | @PyRulez But they aren't all useless. Many characters contributes to the output of the program. | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 21:33 | comment | added | Christopher King | One problem, it isn't getting larger. It is obviously useless, so each iteration is 0 characters, and not larger. | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 18:50 | comment | added | Justin | @nitro2k01 I quote the same: "You are to write a program that will output source code". Anything is source code. But only some things are valid source code. Additionally, it was not specified what is considered output, so I am allowed freedom there. | |
| Feb 23, 2014 at 18:48 | comment | added | nitro2k01 |
"You are to write a program that will output source code that is" The output is arguably not source code. And furthermore, depending on the definition of output (whether output must come specifically from stdout) nothing is actually output.
|
|
| Feb 23, 2014 at 17:59 | history | answered | Justin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |