s=1//2;_=r'''<?#/.__id__;s=+0;#';read -d '' q<<'';s=\';Q='echo s=1//2\;_=r$s$s$s\<\?\#/.__id__\;s=+0\;#$s\;read -d $s$s q\<\<$s$s\;s=\\$s\;Q=$s$Q$s\;eval\ \$Q;echo $q';eval $Q
$_='eval("0"?0?"def strtr(s,f,t);s.tr(f,t) end;class String;def chr(n);self+n.chr end;end":"$u=strtr=(s,f,t)=>[...f].reduce((s,a,i)=>s.replace(RegExp(a,`g`),t[i]),s);printf=console.log;(S=String).prototype.chr=function(n){return this+S.fromCharCode(n)}":[]&&"sub strtr{eval q(q(X)=~y/X/X/r)=~s/X/shift/ger}");printf(strtr("%s<?#/.__id__;s=+0;#j;read -d jj q<<jj;s=zj;Q=jecho s=1//2z;_=rksksksz<z?z#/.__id__z;s=+0z;#ksz;read -d ksks qz<z<ksksz;s=zzksz;Q=kskQksz;evalz zkQ;echo kqj;eval kQwk_=j%sj;eval(k_);//;#jjj;f=jjjs=1//2;_=r%%s%%s%%s;f=%%s%%s%%s;q=_[18]*3;print f%%%%(q,_,q,q,f,q)jjj;q=_[18]*3;print f%%(q,_,q,q,f,q)%s","jkwz","".chr(39).chr(36).chr(10).chr(92).chr(92)),[]&&"s=1//2;_=r".chr(39).chr(39).chr(39),$_,$u?"":"".chr(10));';eval($_);//;#''';f='''s=1//2;_=r%s%s%s;f=%s%s%s;q=_[18]*3;print f%%(q,_,q,q,f,q)''';q=_[18]*3;print f%(q,_,q,q,f,q)
Verify it online!
Based on my updates to this answer, I thought I'd try and optimise out the code that prints a different permutation, but ended up adding in Bash, which added a load more bytes anyway. Whilst this is more optimised than my first attempt (saved over 300 bytes) I'm sure it can still be golfed further.
s=1//2;_=r'''<?#/.__id__;s=+0;#';read -d '' q<<'';s=\';Q='echo s=1//2\;_=r$s$s$s\<\?\#/.__id__\;s=+0\;#$s\;read -d $s$s q\<\<$s$s\;s=\\$s\;Q=$s$Q$s\;eval\ \$Q;echo $q';eval $Q
$_='$z=0?"$&".next+92 .chr+10 .chr: 0..a||eval("printf=console.log;unescape`$%27%5C%0Ak`");$q=$z[1]?$z[1]:h^O;printf("%s%s%s%s<?#/.__id__;s=+0;#%s;read -d %s%s q<<%s%s;s=%s%s;Q=%secho s=1//2%s;_=r%ss%ss%ss%s<%s?%s#/.__id__%s;s=+0%s;#%ss%s;read -d %ss%ss q%s<%s<%ss%ss%s;s=%s%s%ss%s;Q=%ss%sQ%ss%s;eval%s %s%sQ;echo %sq%s;eval %sQ%s%s_=%s%s%s;eval(%s_);//;#%s%s%s;f=%s%s%ss=1//2;_=r%%s%%s%%s;f=%%s%%s%%s;q=_[18]*3;print f%%%%(q,_,q,q,f,q)%s%s%s;q=_[18]*3;print f%%(q,_,q,q,f,q)%s",[]&&"s=1//2;_=r",$r=[]&&$q,$r,$r,$q,$q,$q,$q,$q,$b=$z[2]?$z[2]:chr(92),$q,$q,$b,$d=$z[0]?$z[0]:h^L,$d,$d,$b,$b,$b,$b,$b,$d,$b,$d,$d,$b,$b,$d,$d,$b,$b,$b,$d,$b,$d,$d,$d,$b,$b,$b,$d,$d,$q,$d,$n=$z[3]?$z[3]:chr(10),$d,$q,$_,$q,$d,$q,$q,$q,$q,$q,$q,$q,$q,$q,$z[4]?"":$n);';eval($_);//;#''';f='''s=1//2;_=r%s%s%s;f=%s%s%s;q=_[18]*3;print f%%(q,_,q,q,f,q)''';q=_[18]*3;print f%(q,_,q,q,f,q)
Verify it online!
A little closer to my original approach, but the repetition of the args for printf
is still insane. Using positional arguments instead make this only work in Chrome and is tricky to get working in PHP as well because the $s
in %1$s
is interpolated, but could save a lot of bytes, perhaps using a combination of the two approaches...
1"he wasn't the first one either" links to where? – Erik the Outgolfer – 2017-05-23T16:39:20.060
2C is not really a subset of C++. – MD XF – 2017-05-23T18:35:01.393
Do two different Brainf**k-based languages count as the same language, such as Brainf**k and MOO? – MD XF – 2017-10-31T01:11:51.667
Would requiring the code print out its source followed by its own byte count be sufficiently anti-loophole? – Acccumulation – 2018-04-27T18:14:53.293
4"your code must contain a string literal" Even in languages that have no string literals, such as Brainfuck? – Peter Olson – 2014-09-08T19:35:55.823
@PeterOlson The purpose of the rule is avoid a few loopholes in the golfing-specific languages (e.g. this one). As I can't anticipate what removing or weakening the rule would lead to (and as I'm not a fan of changing rules unless absolutely necessary), I'm sorry, but BF submissions won't be valid for the purpose of this challenge. If it's any consolation, a BF submission would likely not be competitive anyway. ;)
– Martin Ender – 2014-09-08T20:31:53.447