21
\$\begingroup\$

Down with FizzBuzz created a tag.

Some (cough) (cough) are even further down the esoteric alley.

Given our current site rules, I'd tend to agree.

I don't think allowing questions on CR will bring a massive amount of 'em. has 13 questions since May 2011. Granted is different, but how many different implementations can there be in ? Just close identical code as a duplicate. This can be kept under control, and it's executable code, written in a programming language with specifications and at least one implementation, ...also, 3 more questions (currently 47) and whoever created that tag gets a silver badge.

On the other hand, it's a bit ridiculous. What's next? ?

What's your take on this?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 11
    \$\begingroup\$ Where would we draw the line, though? At vb? php? cobol? \$\endgroup\$ – 200_success Aug 30 '14 at 4:09
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ PHP is a very popular coding language used to produce some of the best CMS's there is plus their is tons of support for PHP. Would it be acceptable for someone to use 1337 speak in a comment or question here on code review? That said, the site is "code" review and LOLCODE has the word "code" in it... It's a difficult one. \$\endgroup\$ – CodeX Aug 31 '14 at 8:38
19
\$\begingroup\$

I see no reason why it wouldn't be. Provided it is otherwise on topic. Which, your question is. The code works, you're honestly looking for a review, etc.

What stops us from reviewing Fim++ is that we can't tell if code works, because there is no compiler implemented for the language. No compiler = hypothetical code. So, Fim++ remains off topic until there is a compiler. (God help me, I hope we never have to revisit that topic.)

P.S. There's actually only one brainfuck question. The rest are interpreters. However, I will refrain from commenting on that question unless we wish to widen the scope of this question to all esoteric languages.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I removed the [specific-question] tag, this is really a scope discussion about esoteric languages; [lolcode] is but an example. \$\endgroup\$ – Mathieu Guindon Aug 30 '14 at 3:31
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Ahem \$\endgroup\$ – 200_success Aug 30 '14 at 4:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ I stand corrected in more than one way. Thank you @200_success. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Aug 30 '14 at 11:13
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ So.... just for the record. There is now a working FiM++ interpreter. github.com/avian2/fimpp/blob/master/README.md \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck May 2 '18 at 1:11
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Quick! Make a FizzBuzz! \$\endgroup\$ – Mathieu Guindon May 2 '18 at 1:18
10
\$\begingroup\$

I think another question to ask is: Do we want to review ?

Also related is, do we hate or like 'fun'?

My opinion is that, as long as does not become as popular as or other popular languages, one question every now and then is fine.

I do however feel that in general is very similar to -like languages, but with a different syntax. This makes the language much easier to write, understand, and review, compared to :)

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I admittedly have reservations about brainfuck questions. It's an often intentionally obfuscated language. However, I do believe our two existing questions in the language are okay. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Aug 30 '14 at 18:52
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @RubberDuck Yes, it is an intentionally obfuscated language, and it is a very limited language which forces you to think completely differently (which is both good and bad - I found out that the language does has its name for a good reason). I would never ever want to see a non-commented brainfuck question on Code Review. \$\endgroup\$ – Simon Forsberg Aug 30 '14 at 18:55
7
\$\begingroup\$

Yes?

Why not?

I mean, we did so, didn't we?

\$\endgroup\$
7
\$\begingroup\$

Is it reviewable? Sure.

Should we review? I guess, if someone feels so inclined--but why?

But for me, there's not much point to it. It's truly a toy-language. No one will ever write any serious production code out of it. Moreover, the example questions we have of it show that the language itself encourage ridiculously named variables.

Consider, the following snippet in C:

char * CHEEZ = "CHEEZ";
char * BURGR = "BURGR";
char * WAFLZ = "WAFLZ";
char * SEEKRITMOOV = "ZPOCK"

What's the first thing you comment on if you see something like that on Code review? For me, it's something like:

This is your source code, not an Internet forum. As such, I highly recommend you put a bit more effort into your variable names.

Even if all caps is the naming convention for variables, these sorts of variable names seem to be encouraged by the language... as such, virtually every post is going to have them. Meanwhile, you use the same silly names in literally any other language on the site, and that's going to be commented on in at least one of the answers to the question. It's going to get tiresome making this same comment on literally every question that gets posted.


Moreover, sometimes when someone posts a question in which they're interacting with a database, sometimes the answer to a question about their C# source code might be to improve the query, or sometimes the answer to a question about their query might be to improve their C# code (just as an example). Given how silly and hard to follow is, wouldn't the appropriate answer to any question be to instead write the source code in a language that can actually be read and made sense of by a human?


Whether we allow or don't allow them, either way I'm fine. After all, I don't have to review them, but I think I may pretty much categorically be downvoting all questions (and probably as well).

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ When reviewing C#, reviewers know to recommend PascalCase and camelCase and meaningful names. When reviewing VBA, reviewers know to recommend PascalCase and meaningful names. When reviewing LOLCODE, reviewers should bring their sense of humor and creativity, and know to recommend ALLCAPS with meaningful yet idiomatic names. Would there be anything wrong with char * cheese = "CHEEZ"; in C? \$\endgroup\$ – Mathieu Guindon Aug 30 '14 at 19:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's not the case that bothers me. It's the spelling. CHEESE wouldn't bother me in LOLCODE. If the convention is all caps, then use all caps. What bothers me is the spelling. There's not a single style convention for any language I know that dictates spelling whatsoever--especially not in a "DO IT LIKE YOU'RE A TROLL FROM THE 1990s!" style. \$\endgroup\$ – nhgrif Aug 30 '14 at 19:24
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ The convention is actually lowercase variable names to differentiate from the UPPERCASE keywords and the spelling is a question of being idiomatic, but that's beside the point. This answer is not an argument for LOLCODE being off topic, it's an argument against the language itself. That disappoints me. You might as well argue that there's no reason to ever use Java or VB. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Aug 30 '14 at 22:24
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ There's not no reason to ever use Java. VB--I'm not so sure I'd start a new project in VB, but there certainly is existing legacy software which at a minimum requires an understanding of VB to maintain There's no reason to use LOLCODE and there's no legacy LOLCODE software that needs maintaining. \$\endgroup\$ – nhgrif Aug 31 '14 at 17:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ Again, that's an argument against the language, not the on/off-topicness of LOLCODE. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Aug 31 '14 at 21:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ Did you miss the conversation in chat? I fail to see the point of reviewing a language that doesn't have a purpose... and if there's not a point to reviewing it, then it's probably not on-topic. However, this answer doesn't take a very strong stance one way or the other in terms of the topicness. Rather, it urges that the questions be downvoted. I consider any lolcode question a bad question, regardless of whether or not it is on-topic. \$\endgroup\$ – nhgrif Aug 31 '14 at 21:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ I saw the conversation in chat. While I disagree with your feelings that LOLCODE isn't a "real" language, I can and do respect your decision to downvote such questions. Even if I disagree with that decision. I just feel like the question shouldn't be judged based off of the language alone, but by the merit of the question itself. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Sep 1 '14 at 20:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ Per my opinion, lolcode questions have no merit, that's the whole point. What IS the point of reviewing code written in this language? Now we have a better written code snippet in a language that still won't ever be used for any serious project. Meanwhile, highly upvoted joke questions push extraordinarily good questions written about serious programming languages that someone could actually learn something from downward. \$\endgroup\$ – nhgrif Sep 1 '14 at 20:55
4
\$\begingroup\$

If we look at the progression of the language that is used for texting and the fact that more and more internet browsing happens from mobile devices, who is to say that LOLCODE won't become the next Mobile App Development language?

Eventually people will see this as a sub-language set of English used specifically for communicating over mobile devices.

I think that languages where someone was serious enough to make it into a full language with a compiler should be taken seriously.

  • PHP started with one person playing around with CGI scripts that eventually grew to what we now know to be fairly Object Oriented. PHP History

  • Ruby was created because someone didn't like PERL that, "it had the smell of a toy language" Wikipedia - Ruby

  • Python, well we all know about Python and the fact it was named because the creator was a fan of Monty Python, most of the tutorials talk about the Knights of Ni.

I think that we should take the code reviews seriously and allow the code reviews of LOLCODE to come however frequent they will.

LOLCODE is a joke right now, but tomorrow could be a major language.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ TL;DR: "I think that languages where someone was serious enough to make it into a full language with a compiler should be taken seriously." Yes. That. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Feb 28 '15 at 19:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .