Skip to main content
Code Golf

Return to Answer

Using empty token instead of `..` saves us four bytes. newE compatibility costs us one byte
Source Link
Philippos
Philippos
  • 2.7k
  • 1
  • 12
  • 39

Morsecco: 206 206  203 bytes

writing an interpreter for a two-symbol language using a three-symbol language seems to be a fair challenge:

.   -- . -- . --.-  . . .--
. . . - .-.
-- - -.-. - -.- .- . .-...-- .- --.. ..
 . .--... .- --.. --.
- .- --. - . . - .- . .------- .- - - --.. .-. . ------- .- - .-. - . --.
.. - . -.- - . - .-- . . - . --.

The first line creates an error handler (code written to special address .) to quit the program without error if the input is used up. Everything else is pretty straight forward. Without having MOD or compare I always add -127, adding 127 again if the result was not zero. Maybe I can think of a shorter solution on another day.

Morsecco: 206 bytes

writing an interpreter for a two-symbol language using a three-symbol language seems to be a fair challenge:

.  -- . -- . --.-  . . .--
. . . - .-.
-- - -.-. - -.- .- . .-...-- .- --.. ..
. .--... .- --.. --.
- .- --. - . . - .- . .------- .- - - --.. .-. . ------- .- - .-. - . --.
.. - . -.- - . - .-- . . - . --.

The first line creates an error handler (code written to special address .) to quit the program without error if the input is used up. Everything else is pretty straight forward. Without having MOD or compare I always add -127, adding 127 again if the result was not zero. Maybe I can think of a shorter solution on another day.

Morsecco:  206  203 bytes

writing an interpreter for a two-symbol language using a three-symbol language seems to be a fair challenge:

.   -- . -- . --.-  . . .--
. . . - .-.
-- - -.-. - -.- .- . .-...-- .- --..
 . .--... .- --.. --.
- .- --. - . . - .- . .------- .- - - --.. .-. . ------- .- - .-. - . --.
 - . -.- - . - .-- . . - . --.

The first line creates an error handler (code written to special address .) to quit the program without error if the input is used up. Everything else is pretty straight forward. Without having MOD or compare I always add -127, adding 127 again if the result was not zero. Maybe I can think of a shorter solution on another day.

Source Link
Philippos
Philippos
  • 2.7k
  • 1
  • 12
  • 39

Morsecco: 206 bytes

writing an interpreter for a two-symbol language using a three-symbol language seems to be a fair challenge:

.  -- . -- . --.-  . . .--
. . . - .-.
-- - -.-. - -.- .- . .-...-- .- --.. ..
. .--... .- --.. --.
- .- --. - . . - .- . .------- .- - - --.. .-. . ------- .- - .-. - . --.
.. - . -.- - . - .-- . . - . --.

The first line creates an error handler (code written to special address .) to quit the program without error if the input is used up. Everything else is pretty straight forward. Without having MOD or compare I always add -127, adding 127 again if the result was not zero. Maybe I can think of a shorter solution on another day.