Timeline for Mandelbrot image in every language
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Nov 28 at 13:58 | history | suggested | Themoonisacheese | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edit link to archive.org because the original is down
|
| Nov 28 at 9:36 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 28 at 13:58 | |||||
| Sep 27, 2017 at 2:25 | history | edited | MD XF | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Feb 4, 2016 at 23:33 | history | edited | a spaghetto | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Apr 30, 2014 at 8:58 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Apr 30, 2014 at 11:07 | |||||
| Mar 12, 2014 at 16:33 | comment | added | Mara Ormston |
The thing is, there is no compiler with assembly. You just use macros. Saying that it doesn't count is like saying you can't use any predefined #define statements in C. It's just time consuming to manually replace it all.
|
|
| Mar 12, 2014 at 12:23 | comment | added | hippietrail | Machine code should count if the author actually codes in it directly. I used to code directly in Z80 machine code on my ZX Spectrum in 1983. I didn't even know what an assembler was. I never transferred this skill to any other processor or platform though. That it might be hard to decide who really wrote directly in machine code and who wrote in assembly then lied about it is an entirely separate thing. | |
| Mar 12, 2014 at 5:39 | history | edited | Mara Ormston | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1298 characters in body
|
| Mar 12, 2014 at 5:34 | comment | added | Mara Ormston | Alright, so, to prove this a valid entry, I spent the time it took to hand translate this to binary. I have updated my answer accordingly. | |
| Mar 11, 2014 at 18:42 | comment | added | Mark Jeronimus | I can translate Basic code to assembly code if I take the time. That doesn't make it a valid submission. Read the comment on the first post of the page you linked. I'm with @AShelly. I quote: "You should be scored on the language you write in, not your compiler's output. (Unless you really are writing in raw binary...)" | |
| Mar 10, 2014 at 19:22 | history | edited | Mara Ormston | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Mar 10, 2014 at 19:14 | comment | added | Mara Ormston | No. I can hand convert ASM to binary if really necessary. It will come out with the exact same 177 bytes that my assembler helped with. The resulting code can be pasted by anybody with a binary editor into a new file, saved out, 177 bytes, and it will work as expected. Apparently SO is divided on ASM submissions, so maybe you should clarify if you feel it does not count: meta.codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/260/… | |
| Mar 10, 2014 at 19:13 | comment | added | Mark Jeronimus | Any computer language is a translation/mapping of a human-readable form to computer-readable form. When asking for a language, one always implies the human-readable form, in this case ASM. Have you ever seen people optimizing C, C# and Java code for smallest binary code (on this page)? | |
| Mar 10, 2014 at 18:50 | comment | added | Mara Ormston | I could hand code the entire thing in binary if it makes it easier for you, but that would be like asking anybody using a high level language to avoid using automatic constructs, macros, etc. That's ALL that assembly really is, just a bunch of macros. The resulting binary to run a full JavaScript, Perl, etc. includes the binary of the library. With ASM, the final hex value is everything, libraries, ALL CODE, included. | |
| S Mar 10, 2014 at 11:59 | history | suggested | user11153 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
inline linked full source code
|
| Mar 10, 2014 at 11:45 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 10, 2014 at 11:59 | |||||
| Mar 10, 2014 at 7:55 | comment | added | Christopher Creutzig | @MarkJeronimus I would guess that for most of the popular languages, small programs will get significantly larger when compiled to machine code. Always counting the full binary, of course. | |
| Mar 10, 2014 at 6:32 | comment | added | Mark Jeronimus | Machine-code doesn't count. If that counts, then any language producing byte-code or machine-code should be shorter. I count 820 after changing everything to 1-character long names. | |
| Mar 9, 2014 at 18:46 | history | edited | Mara Ormston | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 60 characters in body
|
| Mar 9, 2014 at 8:17 | comment | added | Mara Ormston |
Someone had edited my response to say you can use Python to create the file (I guess if you don't have a hex editor). I don't use Python, but their method was: python.exe -c "open('mandel.exe', 'wb').write('[ Paste Hex Here ]'.decode('hex_codec'))"
|
|
| Mar 9, 2014 at 8:16 | history | edited | Mara Ormston | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 575 characters in body
|
| S Mar 9, 2014 at 3:49 | history | edited | mob | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
improving a useful edit that discarded useful part of the response
|
| S Mar 9, 2014 at 3:49 | history | suggested | Roger Dahl | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Wrapped the hex bytes in some code that uses Python to create the exe file.
|
| Mar 9, 2014 at 2:25 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Mar 9, 2014 at 3:49 | |||||
| Mar 9, 2014 at 0:19 | history | answered | Mara Ormston | CC BY-SA 3.0 |