I'm only talking about reviewing code not further golfing it.

How do we differentiate esoteric code and golfed code ?


Since LOLCODE is allowed does that make all esoteric languages on topic ?

Example 1

Imagine questions contain a description.

Esoteric language code with comments (just imagine there are good comments)

 ;'' #meaningful comment here
 `50<~\; #meaningful comment here

Example 2

Imagine questions contain a description.

Esoteric language code without comments


From the examples which one is considered on topic ? is first one(one with the comment) considered not golfed ?

GolfScript is included as a sample, This question is for all esoteric languages.


Do we need to revisit code-golf questions?

Is [lolcode] reviewable?

  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ GolfScript considered not golfed??? \$\endgroup\$ – Mathieu Guindon Sep 1 '14 at 15:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, That's the question. \$\endgroup\$ – bhathiya-perera Sep 1 '14 at 15:44
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ GolfScript is included as a sample, This question is for all esoteric languages. \$\endgroup\$ – bhathiya-perera Sep 1 '14 at 15:54
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ This is a tough one. I've been back and forth and have been wanting to post this question myself. I've just not made up my mind about which side of the fence I'm on. It's definitely a gray area. I can see where some questions would be on topic, but others off. Perhaps we shouldn't judge the language, but judge the questions. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Sep 1 '14 at 19:57
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ What about regex? \$\endgroup\$ – Pimgd Sep 9 '14 at 16:47
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think the dilemma is better worded as "Esoteric Language vs Golfed Code". \$\endgroup\$ – NonlinearFruit Mar 20 '17 at 19:37

I believe it is a question about readability.

I wouldn't consider either of those question examples you posted there on-topic.

I admit, I have asked a question about . I do not consider the question I asked as off-topic, because I put a lot of effort into making it a good question. Describing how my algorithm works, how the brainfuck tape is setup, and lots and lots and lots of comments in the code.

The comment you added above: #truncate for webpage purposes Tells me absolutely nothing.

If someone would put a lot of effort into explaining their golfscript code and making it a good question, then possibly, somehow, that might could be perhaps considered on-topic (note how many 'safety' words I've added here). However, I don't know much about golfscript, but judging from the name I doubt we will see any such question soon.

  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ I maybe possibly perhaps somehow agree with this answer :) \$\endgroup\$ – Mathieu Guindon Sep 1 '14 at 15:52
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ I put a lot of effort into making it a good question -> This is how yours and @Mat'sMug questions become on topic. Thanks. \$\endgroup\$ – bhathiya-perera Sep 2 '14 at 5:57

After a lot of careful thought about this, I don't think we should discriminate against entire languages. I believe questions should be on topic or off topic, not languages. I mostly believe this because then where would we draw the line? Would we stop accepting questions? Perhaps or ?

I've heard it said in chat that isn't real code. I can agree that it would never be used in a serious production product, but it compiles, it executes, it does something. Now, that doesn't mean that a question couldn't be example code, or be broken, or otherwise off topic either. We should judge questions, not languages.

I'm okay with esoteric languages here so long as they are on topic questions. The two most important things to consider for questions on esoteric languages are:

  • They must not be hypothetical, so the language must have an implemented compiler. So no questions (yet).
  • The OP must want the code to be good, readable, and maintainable code.

Of course, the other magic questions also apply, but these are the things I feel like we will have to carefully consider when judging individual questions for on-topicness.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ So questions about the "Golfscript" in this meta question would be okay in your book. \$\endgroup\$ – nhgrif Sep 1 '14 at 20:58
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ No @nhgrif. They would not be okay in my book. The limited example posted lacks enough context for a review. It's "Unclear what you're asking." \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Sep 1 '14 at 21:50

You must log in to answer this question.

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