Talk:FURscript

This is the shittiest thing I've ever seen.--67.8.109.96 20:17, 22 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Crap esolang is crap. Chris Pressey (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, is there anything esoteric about this, other than it being really bad? If it's satire, is the author in on the joke? --Graue 03:56, 24 Nov 2006 (UTC)

• The person who designed this language was 100% serious about it and the vb6 compiler, but I think he got as far as a text box and a copyright notice before going back to programming his graphics calculator. --Einsidler 10:44, 24 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Serious? Does it even have any flow control? --Ihope127 15:49, 26 Nov 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can agree with the claim that the designer was "100% serious" if all he did was create an esolangs.org wiki page for it. But your point is taken, if your point was that it wasn't intended as a joke. Chris Pressey (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like this was written by yet another bloody script kiddie. --GreaseMonkey 22:38, 26 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong on the joke list? --Marinus

Okay, now. The specs are ugly, the language is ugly... there's nothing good about it, to be blunt. I vote for deletion. --Ihope127 22:43, 3 Feb 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. or for emphasis we could place it on the joke list. --Seven Inch Bread 00:09, 4 Feb 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a joke to me. I'd just suggest deleting it as 'not esoteric'. ais523 13:38, 5 Feb 2007 (UTC)

It is, of course, unrelated to FurryScript. --Zzo38 18:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is FurryScript, anyway? Searching this wiki for it only returns this page and another page which is essentially empty. Chris Pressey (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK, found it at User:Zzo38/FurryScript. Wasn't searching in User: space. Chris Pressey (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not just let it stay, it's not like we're running out of space on the wiki. I don't think we should delete someone's ideas just because we don't like them. It is an esoteric programming language wiki after all. Orange 18:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

On most wikis I would agree with you, but not here. When I first came here, I wanted to see good examples of esoteric languages; interesting ideas that are fun to read about. This page is not fun to read. It makes reading the entire wiki less fun overall. I think crap ideas need to be removed to keep the wiki overall interesting. — Timwi 11:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So how do we request the deletion of this? — Timwi 20:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Any admin could delete it, but I think it's become enough of an injoke that they're unlikely to. (Special:Listusers lets you see who's an admin around here.) —ehird 20:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I think the goal of being able to read the wiki in a way that avoids rubbish or uninteresting esolangs is a noble one, but as it's subjective, I would suggest the best way it could be done is by having users maintain their own lists of interesting esolangs and why they're interesting in userspace. The philosophy of the wiki as a whole has, to my knowledge, always been to archive and document all esolangs that exist. —ehird 20:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good supporting argument for the Esolang:Featured_languages... feature. Chris Pressey (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I heartly agree with that sentiment, and I certainly wouldn’t advocate the deletion of an esolang that I just don’t like. But this one here is not even an esolang... — Timwi 21:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

But isn't it? If we say that every programming language is either conventional, esoteric, or a joke — which I think is a fairly waterproof trichotomy, but not completely perfect — then this language almost certainly falls into one of the latter two, because the very details of the language itself are strong enough to outweigh the creator's presumably differing intent.

I'm not sure I completely agree with that trichotomy, but I think there's a relatively good chance this language is actually esoteric. Of course, it isn't very interesting for an esolang. —ehird 23:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that every programming language falls into one of these three categories. Some might belong to two or all three or some might not belong at all. But I am also unsure about these things, too. --Zzo38 03:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

An attempt to describe this categorization system with Internet memes:

• Conventional: I are serious language. This is serious programming.
• Esoteric: What is this I don't even
• Joke: I see what you did there
• FURscript: Oh god how did this get here I am not good with computer Chris Pressey (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

For various reasons, I don't think it's practical to have a policy about quality on this wiki. But I might be in favour of actually creating the category "Shameful" that this language is listed under. Or maybe a better name would be "Lame" or "Crap". (But it should be reserved only for those languages, like this one, where there is an overwhelming consensus that it is lame and crap.) Chris Pressey (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)