0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
You should stick Next/Previous links in each of these Contest posts.
How the heck did you compress the Haskell code like that ... nevermind, got 71 bytes now, assuming Unix-style line endings (with DOS-style 2-byte line endings it's 72). Take that!Edit: Also cut down the SysRPL program size to 63.5. I don't expect to be able to compete with CJam and Golfscript, but at least SysRPL is useful for real problems. By the way, the compactness of that language comes from the fact that programs are usually stored in compiled form. Judging from the prime tester example in the post from the first round, TI-Basic does something similar, though (it seems commands take 1 byte each, instead of 1 byte per character in their names), so I don't feel bad for telling you the compiled size instead of the much larger source size. I know Casio-Basic does those 1-byte commands as well, but because string manipulation is not present in the Casio-Basic version on my calcs, I cannot submit a Casio-Basic entry. (String manipulation was introduced in OS 2.00 for the 9860 series.)
How the heck did you compress the Haskell code like that ... nevermind, got 71 bytes now, assuming Unix-style line endings (with DOS-style 2-byte line endings it's 72). Take that!Edit: Also cut down the SysRPL program size to 63.5. I don't expect to be able to compete with CJam and Golfscript, but at least SysRPL is useful for real problems.