"Sander Land" <sander.land / gmail.com> writes:

> As for getting bytes off the pi program, did you actually manage to do
> this or do you only think it's possible? For me, when thinking of a
> way to make something shorter, the result often turns out to be the
> same size (or even larger) than the original.

Part of the problem here is that there isn't a long tradition of ruby
golf competitions where you can see the result after some point.  (as
there is with perl) Combine this with the state of readable ruby
documentation (where is the "alias" built-in documented?  where's the
list of all the global variables?) and I can see why rubyists might
not be able to golf as well as perl fans, even given the differences
in the languages.

I'd like it if more people would post some hints of how they got their
code size down; numbers only are good for a competition, but there
really needs to be some chance to see how people did what they did.  I
still wanna know how the brainfuck interpreter got to be that small.

-- 
s=%q(  Daniel Martin -- martin / snowplow.org
       puts "s=%q(#{s})",s.map{|i|i}[1]       )
       puts "s=%q(#{s})",s.map{|i|i}[1]