Skip to main content
Code Golf

Timeline for Make your language unusable

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

175 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 7 at 20:51 answer added ayaan098 timeline score: 0
Nov 4 at 10:38 comment added jimmy23013 @roblogic In that case, either the program will continue running even though the OS is broken, or everything would crash and the lines following that code would not be actually executed, which is not allowed by this question.
Nov 4 at 8:00 comment added roblogic Is it allowed to sabotage the whole OS? format C: or sudo rm -rf /*
Nov 4 at 5:02 answer added emanresu A timeline score: 2
Nov 4 at 4:28 answer added ATaco timeline score: 1
Apr 22, 2023 at 17:59 answer added Peter timeline score: 3
Dec 28, 2022 at 16:37 answer added noodle person timeline score: 2
Dec 28, 2022 at 10:38 answer added mousetail 'he-him' timeline score: 0
Jan 26, 2021 at 11:27 answer added EasyasPi timeline score: 1
Jan 26, 2021 at 9:58 answer added pxeger timeline score: 13
Dec 6, 2020 at 0:07 answer added sech1p timeline score: 5
Dec 4, 2020 at 21:23 answer added Slord6 timeline score: 2
Dec 1, 2020 at 19:37 answer added user92753 timeline score: 2
Dec 1, 2020 at 19:31 answer added Aiden4 timeline score: 3
Dec 1, 2020 at 14:00 answer added sugarfi timeline score: 2
Dec 1, 2020 at 4:01 answer added Bubbler timeline score: 10
Nov 29, 2020 at 0:48 answer added ceilingcat timeline score: 6
Oct 21, 2019 at 15:16 answer added Citty timeline score: 4
Oct 21, 2019 at 13:19 comment added KrystosTheOverlord Am I allowed to just shut off output? Then there would be no way to extrapolate any data
Oct 21, 2019 at 3:01 answer added ceilingcat timeline score: 4
Apr 10, 2019 at 14:25 history unprotected Mr. Xcoder
Apr 1, 2019 at 8:22 history protected CommunityBot
Apr 1, 2019 at 2:58 history unprotected Ørjan Johansen
Sep 18, 2018 at 14:14 history protected CommunityBot
Mar 26, 2018 at 7:42 answer added Esolanging Fruit timeline score: 6
Feb 1, 2018 at 3:37 history unprotected hyperneutrino♦
Jan 23, 2018 at 20:32 history protected CommunityBot
Jan 13, 2018 at 20:53 answer added James Holderness timeline score: 19
Nov 1, 2017 at 18:42 history unprotected hyperneutrino♦
Nov 1, 2017 at 3:57 history protected CommunityBot
Oct 29, 2017 at 16:47 answer added user75200 timeline score: 2
Oct 24, 2017 at 21:41 history unprotected Blue
Oct 24, 2017 at 12:39 history protected CommunityBot
Oct 24, 2017 at 0:08 answer added ATaco timeline score: 3
Oct 22, 2017 at 5:40 answer added Zachary Cotton timeline score: 5
Oct 21, 2017 at 17:12 answer added evaldeletor timeline score: 1
Oct 17, 2017 at 14:23 comment added 12Me21 Are we allowed to use a language that's already unusable to begin with? (JavaScript for example)
Sep 4, 2017 at 7:12 answer added qqeeeeeq timeline score: 1
Sep 1, 2017 at 12:51 answer added user73902 timeline score: 2
Aug 31, 2017 at 18:55 answer added the tab contains a modified ev timeline score: 0
Jul 28, 2017 at 17:38 answer added The Fifth Marshal timeline score: 11
Jul 22, 2017 at 1:03 history edited Anders Kaseorg CC BY-SA 3.0
Fix https links
Jul 20, 2017 at 19:28 answer added Kaz timeline score: 4
Jul 20, 2017 at 12:03 answer added Fels timeline score: 0
Jul 20, 2017 at 11:25 answer added xxyxxyxxyxyyxxyyyy timeline score: 2
Jul 19, 2017 at 22:42 answer added briantist timeline score: 3
Jul 10, 2017 at 23:41 comment added Gryphon This is quite possible the best pop-con I have ever seen.
Jul 10, 2017 at 20:07 comment added Noah Cristino I can do it in 0 bytes, check out my answer :)
Jul 1, 2017 at 20:50 answer added It Guy timeline score: 4
Jun 9, 2017 at 19:34 answer added Oliver timeline score: 1
May 13, 2017 at 16:25 answer added Rohan Jhunjhunwala timeline score: 2
May 9, 2017 at 19:13 answer added Steadybox timeline score: 5
May 9, 2017 at 17:58 answer added 2xsaiko timeline score: 2
May 5, 2017 at 23:08 answer added Chris timeline score: 2
May 5, 2017 at 20:43 answer added Samir timeline score: 5
Apr 3, 2017 at 13:50 history unprotected user45941
Apr 3, 2017 at 13:29 history edited mbomb007 CC BY-SA 3.0
change urls to https
Mar 29, 2017 at 21:07 answer added djeis timeline score: 3
Mar 28, 2017 at 23:30 answer added user62131 timeline score: 7
Oct 1, 2016 at 22:37 answer added acrolith timeline score: 18
Oct 1, 2016 at 2:04 answer added EMBLEM timeline score: 6
Aug 22, 2016 at 0:15 answer added ATaco timeline score: 2
May 29, 2016 at 13:43 answer added The Fifth Marshal timeline score: 1
May 23, 2016 at 17:26 answer added RenderSettings timeline score: 8
May 23, 2016 at 16:03 review Close votes
May 23, 2016 at 18:00
May 4, 2016 at 0:15 answer added Conor O'Brien timeline score: 2
Apr 11, 2016 at 8:32 history edited jimmy23013 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 6 characters in body
Mar 13, 2016 at 1:27 answer added M L timeline score: 1
Mar 3, 2016 at 15:48 answer added SuperJedi224 timeline score: 6
Feb 10, 2016 at 23:55 comment added jimmy23013 @JAtkin No. Read the question carefully.
Feb 10, 2016 at 23:43 comment added J Atkin Could I do something that prevents any code from running? e.g. while (true) {} // insert code here
Dec 29, 2015 at 1:26 answer added cat timeline score: 1
Dec 11, 2015 at 21:00 answer added cat timeline score: 1
Dec 9, 2015 at 1:16 answer added cat timeline score: 2
Dec 1, 2015 at 10:39 answer added Ismael Miguel timeline score: 5
Dec 1, 2015 at 7:30 answer added Dale Johnson timeline score: 3
Dec 1, 2015 at 3:59 answer added jado timeline score: 2
Nov 28, 2015 at 10:43 comment added starbeamrainbowlabs Apparently I'm not allowed to post an answer on this question, but would exec gzip $0 count for bash? It makes the currently executing script hide in a box, refusing to come out until you manually unpack it. Inspired by this answer.
Nov 28, 2015 at 0:21 answer added The Fifth Marshal timeline score: 1
Oct 29, 2015 at 21:53 answer added Ruben Dijkstra timeline score: 0
Oct 29, 2015 at 0:25 vote accept jimmy23013
Oct 27, 2015 at 14:41 answer added Konamiman timeline score: 6
Oct 27, 2015 at 12:32 comment added jimmy23013 Deleted the poll comments. An answer compiling the inserted code and modifying the compiled code isn't allowed.
Oct 27, 2015 at 9:19 answer added Nagora timeline score: 7
Oct 26, 2015 at 16:17 answer added user902383 timeline score: 6
Oct 26, 2015 at 8:17 comment added jimmy23013 @shelvacu No. That's not an allowed output method and is ignored.
Oct 26, 2015 at 8:03 comment added Shelvacu Can program runtime be considered output? EG if I have STDIN but not STDOUT, is simply running for a different length of time based on primality of input number enough?
Oct 26, 2015 at 7:38 answer added Shelvacu timeline score: 9
Oct 24, 2015 at 22:44 answer added a spaghetto timeline score: 2
Oct 24, 2015 at 12:23 comment added HostileFork says dont trust SE @jimmy23013 I may or may not finish my language, new tricks up my sleeve coming, but I stopped by because this was "trending" in the sidebar. So no promises.
Oct 24, 2015 at 1:00 history protected Downgoat
Oct 23, 2015 at 18:11 answer added Candles timeline score: 27
Oct 23, 2015 at 17:22 answer added yo' timeline score: 4
Oct 23, 2015 at 15:46 history edited jimmy23013 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 52 characters in body
Oct 23, 2015 at 15:03 comment added jimmy23013 @muddyfish You can change how the code is interpreted, or the supporting libraries, etc, or the behavior of the compiler before the code is parsed / compiled / linked into that, but not the part the code itself compiled into, after it is compiled.
Oct 23, 2015 at 14:59 comment added jimmy23013 @Dr.Rebmu It's not always easy to do harm, though, and some of the harmful unusable jails are broken by someone else. And welcome back here.
Oct 22, 2015 at 19:28 comment added HostileFork says dont trust SE Hmmm. Guess the "do no harm" oath didn't exactly make it to software engineering? Oh well. Makes it more interesting. Set the controls for the center of the Sparc.
Oct 22, 2015 at 19:02 answer added wizzwizz4 timeline score: 35
Oct 22, 2015 at 18:27 comment added Blue @jimmy23013 My answer changes the Code but not the co_code. Should it be allowed?
Oct 22, 2015 at 16:31 comment added Alec Teal @jimmy23013 you missed the joke.
Oct 22, 2015 at 15:33 comment added jimmy23013 @AlecTeal Why not?
Oct 22, 2015 at 14:58 comment added Alec Teal Does PHP count?
Oct 22, 2015 at 14:29 answer added MathematicalOrchid timeline score: 48
Oct 22, 2015 at 13:18 answer added 3.14ed_Piper timeline score: 58
Oct 22, 2015 at 8:58 history edited jimmy23013 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 86 characters in body
Oct 22, 2015 at 8:50 history edited jimmy23013 CC BY-SA 3.0
stack snippet; editing regex parsing html is horrible
Oct 21, 2015 at 17:49 answer added zwol timeline score: 40
Oct 21, 2015 at 11:47 answer added Nebula timeline score: 27
Oct 21, 2015 at 9:37 comment added jimmy23013 @pseudonym117 I think it shouldn't be allowed, as the NOPs doesn't exist in the original program. But upvote the following comment if you think it should be allowed.
Oct 21, 2015 at 9:35 answer added AJFaraday timeline score: 11
Oct 21, 2015 at 0:28 answer added geometrian timeline score: 5
Oct 20, 2015 at 22:43 answer added SuperJedi224 timeline score: 5
Oct 20, 2015 at 22:08 answer added Adám timeline score: 13
Oct 20, 2015 at 19:46 comment added pseudonym117 @jimmy23013 the clarifications do not exactly clarify what i meant to ask. What I meant was can I do something like this (using .NET as an example): before the IL code is JIT compiled to native code, change all of the IL op codes in the user program into NOPs. So the instructions would be called, they would just do nothing.
Oct 20, 2015 at 15:46 answer added puckipedia timeline score: 4
Oct 20, 2015 at 14:03 comment added jimmy23013 @Luminous Some of them doesn't. The intention was to break the language by redefining the language, not by running into an infinite loop, etc, which is a normal features of any Turing-complete language.
Oct 20, 2015 at 13:45 history edited jimmy23013 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 53 characters in body
Oct 20, 2015 at 13:39 answer added Michael Stern timeline score: 31
Oct 20, 2015 at 13:34 history edited jimmy23013 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 244 characters in body
Oct 20, 2015 at 13:16 history edited jimmy23013 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 334 characters in body
Oct 20, 2015 at 13:04 comment added Luminous Are these answers satisfying what you were looking for? Break the language so it's unusable or were you hoping for something else?
Oct 20, 2015 at 12:20 answer added Matteo Italia timeline score: 99
Oct 20, 2015 at 11:08 answer added MathematicalOrchid timeline score: 47
Oct 20, 2015 at 10:36 answer added MathematicalOrchid timeline score: 55
Oct 20, 2015 at 7:04 comment added jimmy23013 @slebetman I think it is ok. Technically, only "limiting the number of possible grammatically correct programs" is currently forbidden.
Oct 20, 2015 at 6:58 comment added jimmy23013 @jdphenix That's ok, and is the supposed way solving this challenge.
Oct 20, 2015 at 5:14 comment added slebetman A lot of the answers below make the new inserted code error out. Is that OK? I mean, is it OK to modify your runtime/language in such a way that all new code are errors?
Oct 20, 2015 at 5:08 answer added slebetman timeline score: 10
Oct 20, 2015 at 2:03 comment added jdphenix What about solutions that redefine some of the required operations to produce invalid output, like 2 + 2 = false?
Oct 19, 2015 at 22:50 comment added jimmy23013 @pseudonym117 No. See clarifications.
Oct 19, 2015 at 22:08 comment added pseudonym117 I assume this is not allowed, but figured i would check: can I modify the user code at runtime?
Oct 19, 2015 at 21:59 answer added Joshua timeline score: 27
Oct 19, 2015 at 19:50 answer added Cephalopod timeline score: 37
Oct 19, 2015 at 19:27 answer added Nico A timeline score: 70
Oct 19, 2015 at 18:49 answer added Mason Wheeler timeline score: 15
Oct 19, 2015 at 17:34 answer added Conor O'Brien timeline score: 3
Oct 19, 2015 at 16:45 answer added Peter Taylor timeline score: 7
Oct 19, 2015 at 16:34 history reopened Kade
Downgoat
Sp3000
Nico A
jimmy23013
Oct 19, 2015 at 13:04 comment added jimmy23013 @PeterTaylor Added a criteria to disallow it. I'm not sure this solves all the problems.
Oct 19, 2015 at 13:03 history edited jimmy23013 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 109 characters in body
Oct 19, 2015 at 12:28 comment added Peter Taylor So then it seems to be saying that in languages with explicit IO it's permissible to do completely boring things like reading and discarding the contents of stdin. It sets up a completely unfair playing field where some languages require you to carefully handle the IO for the inserted code, and other languages allow you to trash it and deny IO to the inserted code.
Oct 19, 2015 at 10:39 history edited jimmy23013 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 80 characters in body
Oct 19, 2015 at 10:22 comment added jimmy23013 @DankMemes There is a related cops-and-robber in the sandbox by feersum, which removed the part about hacking existing languages, but just write a new language for the robbers to use.
Oct 19, 2015 at 10:19 comment added jimmy23013 @Sp3000 Rephrased that part a bit and hope it became clearer.
Oct 19, 2015 at 10:17 history edited jimmy23013 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 143 characters in body
Oct 19, 2015 at 10:10 comment added jimmy23013 @PeterTaylor You should choose at least one output mechanism and ignore all other mechanisms. For the later comment, I have changed "cannot" to "isn't usually able to". It's only meant to prevent answers doing nothing in a language without explicit IO.
Oct 19, 2015 at 10:02 history edited jimmy23013 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 363 characters in body
Oct 19, 2015 at 9:57 history edited jimmy23013 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 363 characters in body
Oct 19, 2015 at 0:54 review Reopen votes
Oct 19, 2015 at 10:56
Oct 18, 2015 at 23:54 comment added user45941 @DankMemes Agreed. As it stands, it's much too vague, and most answers would be invalidated by finding a workaround. CnR with this premise would be delightful.
Oct 18, 2015 at 23:54 history closed Peter Taylor
Conor O'Brien
Sp3000
rink.attendant.6
es1024 		Needs details or clarity
Oct 18, 2015 at 23:07 comment added DankMemes This could have made a really great cops and robbers challenge I think.
Oct 18, 2015 at 21:44 review Close votes
Oct 18, 2015 at 23:54
Oct 18, 2015 at 21:26 comment added Peter Taylor And if so, that seems to be in stark contradiction to the way you haven't complained that the answers which close stdin are violating the rule "Your code should redirect the user input (that contains informations of arbitrary length) to the inserted code, if a code block cannot get the user input directly in the language you are using.".
Oct 18, 2015 at 21:03 comment added Peter Taylor What do you mean by that? That if you want to ignore all output mechanisms, you have to provide a new one?
Oct 18, 2015 at 20:11 answer added rayryeng timeline score: 18
Oct 18, 2015 at 20:01 history tweeted twitter.com/StackCodeGolf/status/655836240357519360
Oct 18, 2015 at 19:37 comment added jimmy23013 @PeterTaylor How? And note that the grammatically equivalent reference must satisfy the criteria in any definition you choose.
Oct 18, 2015 at 19:15 comment added Peter Taylor I'm not sure what the update means. If the intention is that it's sufficient to break print statements and you can claim to be ignoring output to a file then I think the current wording allows you to claim to be ignoring all standard output mechanisms.
Oct 18, 2015 at 18:42 answer added wizzwizz4 timeline score: 8
Oct 18, 2015 at 18:06 answer added Ismael Miguel timeline score: 107
Oct 18, 2015 at 16:02 answer added Downgoat timeline score: 342
Oct 18, 2015 at 15:42 history edited jimmy23013 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 1 character in body
Oct 18, 2015 at 15:37 history edited jimmy23013 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 268 characters in body
Oct 18, 2015 at 15:23 comment added jimmy23013 @ppperry If the inserted code is after the infinite loop so it is not executed, then no. If the inserted code runs into a infinite loop itself, it's fine.
Oct 18, 2015 at 15:21 answer added DankMemes timeline score: 77
Oct 18, 2015 at 14:13 comment added The Fifth Marshal What about code that executes an infinte loop, so your code after it never gets executed. Is that valid?
Oct 18, 2015 at 13:57 answer added The Fifth Marshal timeline score: 23
Oct 18, 2015 at 13:53 answer added Fabian Schmengler timeline score: 30
Oct 18, 2015 at 13:07 answer added Martin Ender timeline score: 189
Oct 18, 2015 at 13:01 comment added Dennis If it wasn't for #{...}, I'd have a neat GolfScript answer...
Oct 18, 2015 at 12:53 comment added jimmy23013 @muddyfish Basically no and yes. See the clarifications.
Oct 18, 2015 at 12:50 history edited jimmy23013 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 372 characters in body
Oct 18, 2015 at 12:30 comment added Blue Am I allowed to change the code before executing it? Also, can I run other code whilst I am running the code given?
Oct 18, 2015 at 12:17 history asked jimmy23013 CC BY-SA 3.0
toggle format