User talk:Corbin

On 1BRC

Hello, could you please tell me what the implementation of language 1_Billion_Row_Challenge is supposed to be linking to.

User:Krolkrol

It appears that the community leaderboard is offline. I've changed the link to an Internet Archive snapshot which is representative of how the site appeared when I stubbed the article. I've also updated the reference implementation to point at Morling's git repository. In the future, please ask article-specific questions on article talk pages; it increases the number of people who can see and respond to you. Corbin (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

On User: pages

you dont even have a real user page sadly --Win7HE (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not here to have a user page. I'm here to write public-domain articles on relatively-unknown programming languages. Corbin (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

atleast create one --Win7HE (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

On Turing tarpits

How large can a tarpit be? ↑ (↑↑↑) 16:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm a wikipedia:Discordian, so let's say five. The question is really: five what? If you look at the already-organized sections of the article, you'll see that tarpits are relative to machines, which are relative to models of execution, which are relative to models of computation. When we say that a small system is surprisingly Turing-complete, what we really mean is that the system has a particular encoding which faithfully represents something equivalent to a Turing machine; in engineering jargon, the small system serves as a compiler target for any computable programming system. I'll explain more on the talk page for Turing tarpit in a moment.

Now, you might have a very reasonable followup: why be so precise? Well, I'd like to hold the machines as constants, and study the size of programs over those machines. This only works when we all agree which machines we're studying. This lets us gauge the hardness of problems by encoding them as programs over chosen machines, which is one of my pet projects. Corbin (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

On QX

Only the interpreter is AI generated. mariomakercalculator↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ 16:48, 4 December 2025 (BRZ)

The category is for any article which is substantially AI-generated; it's about the amount of text, not what the text does. In the case of QX, I can't verify the Turing-completeness without first understanding the interpreter, which will require that I simplify the given code. The fact that the code is AI-generated frustrates review, just like how AI-generated prose frustrates other editors.

Please try to understand: if we had a comprehensive policy in place, we'd likely ban the use of generative tools for articles. There is simply too much of a risk that the provided code doesn't work, that the provided paragraphs are incorrect, that the provided references don't exist. Corbin (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I actually tested the AI-generated interpreter and even modified it a little bit. mariomakercalculator↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ 16:54, 4 December 2025 (BRZ)

I went and added a Lua interpreter for the language w/o AI to supersede the Python one —aadenboy (talk|contribs) 21:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)