DOT.

DOT.

Designed by	User:IHaven'tComeUpWithANameYet
Appeared in	2025
Computational class	Unknown
Major implementations	Python
Influenced	HQ9+;Love;Deadfish

This is still a work in progress. It may be changed in the future.

Not to be confused with Dot, nor Dot's.

DOT. is esolang that uses DOT. commands

Language description

DOT. is output only esoteric programming language that can output numbers (or other characters using quine)

DOT. is inspired by..

DOT. is inspired by Love, HQ9+ and Deadfish. DOT. using commands from its name, like Love, and has examples in one command, like HQ9+, and i chose Character-by-character because of Deadfish

Commands

command	description
D	Decrement
O	Output the accumulator
T	Increment
.	Quine

Examples

This section is still a work in progress. It may be changed in the future.

Example	Output	Name
TTTTO	4	XKCD Random Number

Computational class of DOT.

Idk how to find computational class, but ChatGPT says:

DOT. is extremely weak compared to most esolangs. This section analyzes and proves its computational class.

Capabilities

DOT. has:

• A single accumulator (integer register), initialized at 0.
• Commands:

Command	Effect
T	Increment the accumulator by 1
D	Decrement the accumulator by 1
O	Output the current accumulator value
.	Output the program text itself (quine)

• No input, no conditionals, no jumps, no loops.

Limitations

• Every DOT. program is a fixed finite sequence of commands.
• The accumulator value after the first i commands is:

acc_i = (#T up to i) - (#D up to i)

• Each O outputs acc_i.
• Each . outputs the entire program text (which is fixed).
• Therefore, the output of a DOT. program is a finite, predetermined string.
• No command depends on external input.
• There are no loops or branching: execution is strictly linear.

Proof of weakness

• For any program Failed to parse (syntax error): {\displaystyle P = c_1 c_2 … c_n} with Failed to parse (syntax error): {\displaystyle c_i ∈ {T, D, O, .}} ,

the full output can be determined entirely from $P$ itself.

• No DOT. program can produce an infinite output, except by being infinitely long itself.
• No DOT. program can branch or respond to external input.
• Thus DOT. cannot simulate even a finite automaton on input.

Computational class

• DOT. is not Turing complete.
• DOT. is weaker than finite automata, because it cannot process input at all.
• Every DOT. program computes a constant function from the empty input set to a finite output string.
• Equivalently, DOT. corresponds to the class of straight-line counter programs with no branching.

Conclusion

DOT. belongs to the trivial class of languages that compute only constant functions. Its outputs are always finite and predetermined by the program text. In terms of the Chomsky hierarchy or standard computability theory, DOT. is far below regular languages, pushdown automata, or Turing machines.

Implementations

I plan to create lots of interpreters,and there is other page for interpreters: DOT./Implementations

External resources

This section is still a work in progress. It may be changed in the future.