Talk:Loop without output

I believe there already exists an optimizing compiler for this language, called. It even writes the for loop for you, given just the upper bound -- then optimizes it away. Chris Pressey (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * so maybe it is meant to be closer to performance art than a language
 * I was merely pointing out the availability of implementations. No judgement as to language-ness or non-language-ness was intended. Chris Pressey (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * More of a musing on the concept's operational semantics/computational class than a judgement on my part, too. You know what those silly anonymous editors are like. (Except for the IPv6 ones; I love those.) ehird (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right. It's not a language. You see that the category it is in is Concepts, don't you? Star651 (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Either way, I might nevertheless question the statement that Loop without output is "as useful as brainfuck"... Chris Pressey (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless of course the "it" in that statement refers to Javascript rather than Loop without output; I just noticed the potential ambiguity there. Chris Pressey (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)