[ENDED] Code Golf Contest #4

[DJ Omnimaga]

Wow, I didn't know there were people here doing SysRPL .

[bb010g]

71 bytes of Haskell.

[3298]

Actually, there are 2-byte tokens in TI-BASIC, and lots of them. That is part of the reason why we don't like lowercase letters.

Yes, of course, there's more than 256 commands, so 2-byte tokens are necessary. Casio does the same, by the way, On my old calculators there were 2 categories of 2-byte tokens (each beginning with its own prefix byte), later calculators, such as the 9860 series, expanded that. The 9860 series somewhen (I think it was also with OS 2.00) also introduced lowercase letters, and guess what? they use 2-byte tokens, I noticed that when I got a program including these sent to my 9750 from a 9860. All lowercase letters were converted to sequences of two tokens each because they used a prefix which wasn't present in the old calcs.
 The funniest thing is: At least on the old calculators there actually were 1-byte lowercase letters in the usual ASCII range, it was just impossible to type them. But once you got them through a cable or through one of the 9x50 series' at least 3 different bugs allowing you to edit memory directly, you could copy them anywhere you want through a rudimentary 6-slot clipboard called function memory.
There were other instances of such Casio silliness: in addition to the lowercase letters, some special characters were impossible to type, but they could be displayed. This includes the => token on the AFX series, which behaves like a shorter If. Other calculators can type them (including the 9860 series released after the AFX), and they work fine on the AFX, but they are not in the menus. A trick to get it is to send it from a 9x50 series calc through the undocumented and hidden compatibility receive mode (the AFX normally uses a slightly different protocol at slightly higher speed).
More silliness: Casio introduced a second program type for base-n (n=2, 8, 10 or 16) calculations. These use a tiny special command set, disallow use of most normal commands, and round numbers to integers automatically. Though with the same tricks you can get these commands into normal programs, and they seem to behave normally, excluding auto-rounding. (The function memory is disabled in base-n programs, so copying them directly is impossible.)

In the end, I mostly went away from those stupid Casio calcs. HP calcs, especially the 48/49/50 series, are much more capable. The Prime looks nice too (fast programs, color screen), but it apparently has lots of bugs, no RPN programmability, a way too small keyboard (no digit input in alpha mode, one less shift key), Casio-style icon menus and more. I'm staying with the 50G, the Prime isn't worth the money.

Looks like things are getting pretty heated in the Haskell category! 3298 and bb010g are slashing bytes like crazy! Only thing to wonder now is, when will they stop? (And will it be before the competition's over?)

This could be the end, considering that we have the same score now. Maybe we hit the global optimum.

Edit: Just because I can, I made an x86 ASM version. I didn't expect it to become small, and it's much bigger than anything mentioned here. Oh well, it's not a suitable language for Code Golf. I'm not submitting it, so if you want to see the source, ask me.
 I use just the Unix sys_write and sys_exit calls, no trickery with the C standard library. It compiles to 838 bytes, and after treating it with strip, it's at 444. The source is 516 bytes long, but I could get rid of some formatting to get that down to 465, maybe even further.
 

[JWinslow23]

3 days left! Anyone wanna take a stab at the first ever Axe entry?

[bb010g]

Looks like things are getting pretty heated in the Haskell category! 3298 and bb010g are slashing bytes like crazy! Only thing to wonder now is, when will they stop? (And will it be before the competition's over?)

This could be the end, considering that we have the same score now. Maybe we hit the global optimum.

70 bytes.

Edit: Just because I can, I made an x86 ASM version. I didn't expect it to become small, and it's much bigger than anything mentioned here. Oh well, it's not a suitable language for Code Golf. I'm not submitting it, so if you want to see the source, ask me.
 I use just the Unix sys_write and sys_exit calls, no trickery with the C standard library. It compiles to 838 bytes, and after treating it with strip, it's at 444. The source is 516 bytes long, but I could get rid of some formatting to get that down to 465, maybe even further.

Why not submit it? It's an entry, even if the language is verbose.

EDIT: BOO YAH! 68 bytes, same as Perl.

[JWinslow23]

Oh dang.

3298, care to rebut?

[pimathbrainiac]

285 bytes of C
Wait that doesn't work...

I'm going to work on a smaller Java solution, though

[3298]

Well, I could remove the _ in mapM_ if some garbage looking like [(),(),(),()] below the output is okay. But other than that, I ran out of ideas.
In other news, I reduced my Java program size by 4 bytes, so I claim the first place in that category again. The XTend entry is also reduced by 7 bytes. And finally there is a new C entry with 154 bytes.

[JWinslow23]

IOCCC, anyone?

[Runer112]

Is it okay if the output starts with a newline?

[Juju]

IOCCC, anyone?

Well yes.

Also my output is surroundered by double quotes and JWin don't seem to care.

[JWinslow23]

IOCCC, anyone?

Well yes.

Also my output is surroundered by double quotes and JWin don't seem to care.

Well, it shouldn't matter as long as it is a correct output.

[bb010g]

Well, I could remove the _ in mapM_ if some garbage looking like [(),(),(),()] below the output is okay. But other than that, I ran out of ideas.
In other news, I reduced my Java program size by 4 bytes, so I claim the first place in that category again. The XTend entry is also reduced by 7 bytes. And finally there is a new C entry with 154 bytes.

That should be fine; I did so. That last byte is a killer, though.

* bb010g pokes JWinlow23 to remove the underscore from 3298's answer

[JWinslow23]

Well, I could remove the _ in mapM_ if some garbage looking like [(),(),(),()] below the output is okay. But other than that, I ran out of ideas.
In other news, I reduced my Java program size by 4 bytes, so I claim the first place in that category again. The XTend entry is also reduced by 7 bytes. And finally there is a new C entry with 154 bytes.

That should be fine; I did so. That last byte is a killer, though.

* bb010g pokes JWinlow23 to remove the underscore from 3298's answer

I did. Did you see the size change?

[bb010g]

Well, I could remove the _ in mapM_ if some garbage looking like [(),(),(),()] below the output is okay. But other than that, I ran out of ideas.
In other news, I reduced my Java program size by 4 bytes, so I claim the first place in that category again. The XTend entry is also reduced by 7 bytes. And finally there is a new C entry with 154 bytes.

That should be fine; I did so. That last byte is a killer, though.

* bb010g pokes JWinlow23 to remove the underscore from 3298's answer

I did. Did you see the size change?

* bb010g derps

Thought he was at 70 instead of 71 before.