Beer Hunter, contest 44 wrote:I could get down to 74 tokens just by converting my main loop into machine code, putting it in a string literal and executing it — but that would be cheating…
Well, I don't see an explicit rule against such a thing (no macro's maybe?)... But I agree it's cheating.
However, I'd really like to have consensus on these kind of approaches. I had an idea during coffee break yesterday (well, actually a friend inspired me). The idea theoretically allows any token-brevity problem to be solved in a few hundred tokens. So it gives a upper limit - whenever the programming task is too great, flip over to BF. It involves a lot more coding, but exploits the "string literals is one token"-fact maximally! Before sharing this idea with you (and abandoning it), take a guess...