Talk:Redcode

Is it really esoteric? Phantom Hoover 12:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. --Chris Pressey 05:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, a single one of its instructions -- though I forget which -- is TC. Maybe that one alone would be esoteric. But hey, wild inconsistency is our strongly stuck-to policy, right? —ehird 15:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In my mind it is disqualified by being a "solution". Or to put it another way, if Redcode is esoteric, then BANCStar, Ursala, and APL are also esoteric. --Chris Pressey 00:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a few eso-like features in it (such as the weird inconsistencies in the address format modifiers), but not really more so than any other assembly language. The real weirdness of the language is that it's clearly an asm, yet doesn't correspond to any processor.
 * I suspect that were assembler created today, rather than having a historical place in programming, it would be considered an esolang, though. --ais523 16:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * MIXAL doesn't correspond to any (physical) processor that I know of -- is it so weird for that? Assembly languages are basically (more-)readable carrier formats for machine languages -- are machine languages esoteric? --Chris Pressey 00:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)