Both these languages have the saving grace that they
don't require the programmer to think in trinary
(base 3).
When we get Inline::Malbolge, then you'll see weird.
update: Upon further inspection,
I recant my former position on Unlambda and agree
that it is indeed quite weird after all. I had
not fully understood the implications of the
combinators before.
SPL, OTOH, is just lame
and verbose; any resemblance to Shakespearean plays
is so superficial as to be irrelevant. The language
is semantically so similar to a typical
normally-paradigmed language
that it is not even necessary to read the manual to get
a general idea how it works; looking at the examples is
adequate. Language like "You are equal to the sum
of yourself and several apparently randomly selected
words" is neither Shakespearean nor terribly original,
but the meaning is pretty obvious.
I also still maintain that the trinary nature of
Malbolge makes it weird. You need a warped and
twisted mind just to be *able* to think in trinary,
much less to come up with the idea of forcing the
programmer to do so. It should be noted, it's not
just a regular language converted mathematically
from base 16 (or whatever) to 3 for obfuscatory
purposes, like the way a JAPH might convert between
base 256 (ASCII) and 16 (hex) by using unpack.
No, Malbolge is designed as trinary
from the ground up. That's weird.
$;=sub{$/};@;=map{my($a,$b)=($_,$;);$;=sub{$a.$b->()}}
split//,".rekcah lreP rehtona tsuJ";$\=$ ;->();print$/
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] [d/l] |
Malbolge ain't weird. A program written as what appears to be a Shakespearean play is weird. Malbolge is "just" (and that's a big "just") horribly convoluted.
Makeshifts last the longest.
| [reply] [Watch: Dir/Any] |