17
2
Befunge is a 2-dimensional esoteric programming language. The basic idea is that (one-character) commands are placed on a 2-dimensional grid. Control flow walks across the grid, executing commands it passes over, and changing direction when it hits an arrow (>^<v
). Commands are stack-based; see this list. See also http://esolangs.org/wiki/Befunge.
The specification for Befunge-98 is available.
Problem
Write a program that transforms a Befunge program into a more compact representation. For example, the following program prints 0
:
> 0 v
> @ .
^ <
In this case, it could be compacted without changing the program's behavior by removing rows of spaces, to give
>0v
>@.
^ <
More sophisticated transformations could rotate or mirror sequences of commands and eliminate unnecessary control-flow commands in order to compact the program. For example, with this program:
>12345v
6
v....7<
.
.
.
@
you might tuck the end of the program into the hole:
>12345v
>...@ 6
^....7<
For the first example, the most compact program possible is
>0.@
You may use any transformations as long as the output program gives the same result.
Input programs
Input programs are valid Befunge-98 programs.
You may assume that the input program is deterministic. That is, it does not use commands that read external state: the user input commands &
and ~
, the randomizer ?
, and the self-modifying code commands p
and g
.
You may assume the input program terminates.
Scoring
This is not a code golf, but a problem to write a program that performs code golfing.
The input is a set of test cases (Befunge programs that satisfy the input restrictions above). The total score is the sum of the scores for the test cases.
Score for each test case
The score is the area of the convex hull of the non-empty cells in the output program, where each cell is treated as a square whose four corners are lattice points in the Cartesian plane. For example, a program of
> v
@ <
gets a score of 9.5.
If your program does not terminate in a reasonable amount of time and memory on a particular input, the score is that of the input program. (This is because you could trivially add a time-limiting wrapper that outputs the input program unchanged if your program doesn't terminate in time.)
If the test-case program has a different result (or fails to terminate) after processing with your program, the score is the score of the input program plus a penalty of 100 points.
8What's to prevent running the program to completion and writing a Befunge program that prints the same output? – Keith Randall – 2013-01-02T04:04:09.027
5Are "get" and "put" allowed? If you allow "put" (self-modifying code), it will be hard to do anything. – Keith Randall – 2013-01-02T04:07:45.963
2Where does the execution begin from? Top left corner? If so, can you explain the output of the 2nd example?
.
means output integer, but if you start from the top left, then there is not integer in the stack to output. – elssar – 2013-01-03T13:30:51.3171@elssar yes,
.
outputs an integer. But also, when there isn't enough parameters on the stack, befunge pretends there is a sufficient amount of zeroes there instead. So the second example would output000
. – daniero – 2013-01-04T21:20:09.327@KeithRandall: Writing a new program with the same output works only for programs with a short output.
g
andp
are not allowed (sorry, forgot about those; edited). – Mechanical snail – 2013-01-07T05:37:52.663@elssar: That was a typo; I meant the arrow to go to the right. Daniero explained correctly what was written. – Mechanical snail – 2013-01-07T05:38:38.230
@Mechanicalsnail oh, okay. Also, please edit the question and correct the typo – elssar – 2013-01-07T05:54:10.940
@elssar: Fixed. I thought I had fixed it a while ago, but apparently not. – Mechanical snail – 2013-02-07T09:04:41.803
is
=
(eval) to be allowed? It's hard to do any stack optimisations in presence of this instruction.()
(load/unload semantics) is also problematic in this sense. Should we treat them as black boxes that don't overwrite the code? – John Dvorak – 2013-07-07T15:53:32.443also, the
j
ump instruction (pop a number and jump that many instructions) is truly lethal to any optimisation – John Dvorak – 2013-07-07T16:11:27.083@JanDvorak: I did Befunge 93 -
gp?&~
. You're crazy to try Befunge 98 (nastiness abounds in many instructions, including=jk{}()
). – Keith Randall – 2013-07-12T04:19:04.693@KeithRandall supporting
jk()
is easy: any time I encounter one of()=gijopsxy
, I run away in terror. I will probably treat{}k
as stack-blackboxes, which taint ("mess with horriby") the stack, but can still be layouted.()=gijopsxy
break layouting. I might add support forjkx
with a constant argument, however, andy
really only taints the stack, not layouting. My code is far from done, however – John Dvorak – 2013-07-12T05:40:03.933