সর্বনিম্ন ইনপুট থেকে আউটপুট সর্বাধিক করা হচ্ছে

Question

স্পষ্টতই, কোড গল্ফিং হ'ল সর্বনিম্ন কোড সর্বাধিক তৈরি করা। প্রকৃত আউটপুটটি আসলে কী তা কে যত্নশীল?

যদিও আমাদের কাছে সর্বোচ্চ ইনপুট থেকে আউটপুট অনুপাতের জন্য একটি চ্যালেঞ্জ ছিল , এটি প্রদত্ত কোড দৈর্ঘ্যের সাথে সর্বাধিক সীমাবদ্ধ এবং নির্ধারক আউটপুটের জন্য একটি কল । হাস্যকরভাবে, এই চ্যালেঞ্জটি তখন কোড-গল্ফ নয় ।

নিয়মাবলী:

1. তিনটি স্বতন্ত্র স্নিপেট লিখুন (সম্পূর্ণ প্রোগ্রাম / ফাংশন নয়)।

2. স্নিপেটগুলি অবশ্যই একই ভাষায় থাকতে হবে।

3. স্কোর হ'ল আউটপুটযুক্ত বাইটের সংখ্যা।

4. আউটপুটগুলি ফলাফলের আকারে, STDOUT ইত্যাদি হতে পারে etc.

5. স্নিপেটগুলি কোনও ত্রুটি সৃষ্টি করতে পারে না।

6. স্নিপেটগুলি আউটপুট বিভিন্ন ধরণের হতে পারে।

7. ট্রেলিং করা নতুন লাইনের অক্ষর গণনা করা হয় না।

8. প্রথম স্নিপেটটি অবশ্যই 1 বাইট বা ন্যূনতম দৈর্ঘ্যের হতে হবে যা কমপক্ষে 1 বাইট আউটপুট তৈরি করে।

9. দ্বিতীয় স্নিপেটটি তার চেয়ে এক বাইট বেশি দীর্ঘ হতে হবে।

10. তৃতীয় স্নিপেট অবশ্যই প্রথমটির চেয়ে দুটি বাইট দীর্ঘ হতে হবে।

Comments

হ্যাঁ আমি মনে করি আউটপুটটিকে তাত্ত্বিকভাবে সীমাবদ্ধ করার জন্য সীমাবদ্ধ করা দরকার, আপনার সম্ভবত এটিও নির্দিষ্ট করা উচিত যে এটি

— নির্বিচারবাদী

আমাদের কী ধরে নিতে দেওয়া হচ্ছে যে প্রতিটি স্নিপেটটি একটি তাজা আরপিএল ইনস্ট্যান্সে চালিত হয়েছে?

— সুপারজেডি ২৪

@ সুপারজেডি ২২৪ হ্যাঁ

— অ্যাডম

"ফর্ম" "বিভিন্ন কি আছে ফরম আউটপুট"?

— লুইস মেন্ডো

@ লুইসমেডো উদাহরণস্বরূপ একটি স্নিপেট একটি বার্তা বাক্স পপ আপ করতে পারে, অন্যটি স্টডআউট প্রিন্ট করে।

— অ্যাডম

Answer 1

জিএস 2, 412 + 5.37 * 10 ⁹⁰² + 10 ^{10 903.1} বাইট

1. f1\n2\nFizz\n4\nBuzz\n...\nFizzBuzzএকটি- 412বাইট স্ট্রিং হিসাবে ধাক্কা ।

2. fôএর সমস্ত অনুমতি মুদ্রণ, তাই 412! * 412অক্ষর।

3. fôôসেই 412 এর সমস্ত ক্রিয়াকলাপ মুদ্রণ করে! -পরিমাণ তালিকার, যেখানে প্রতিটি উপাদান 412 অক্ষর লম্বা, তাই 412 * (412!)!বাইটস।

সম্পাদনা: বিষয়গুলিকে দৃষ্টিভঙ্গিতে রাখার জন্য এটি অন্ততপক্ষে

10^{1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000}

বাইটস, এখন পর্যন্ত এখানে অন্য সমস্ত উত্তর বামন।

Answer 2

পাইথ, 26 + 1140850688 + (> 4.37 × 10 ^20201781 )

তৃতীয় প্রোগ্রামের আউটপুটটির সঠিক দৈর্ঘ্য গণনা করা সম্ভব কিনা আমার কোনও ধারণা নেই। আমি কেবল সীমানা দিতে পারি। এটি অক্ষর 4.37 × 10^20201781এবং 1.25 × 10^20201790অক্ষরের মধ্যে কিছু মুদ্রণ করবে ।

G
yG
yyG

এই মুদ্রণ:

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
['', 'a', 'b', ..., 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz']
[[], [''], ['a'], ['b'], ['c'], ..., ['', 'a', 'b', ..., 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz']]

প্রথমটি বর্ণমালার মুদ্রণ করে, দ্বিতীয়টি বর্ণমালার সমস্ত উপসর্গ এবং তৃতীয়টি বর্ণমালার উপ-উপগ্রহের উপসেটগুলি দৈর্ঘ্যের একটি তালিকা মুদ্রণ করে 2^(2^26) ~= 1.09 × 10^20201781 ।

অবশ্যই কোনও কম্পিউটার এই বৃহত তালিকাটি গণনা করতে এবং আউটপুট দিতে সক্ষম হবে না।

Comments

যদি আমার গণনা সঠিক হয় তবে এটিতে 2 ^ (2 ^ 26-1) * (2 ^ 25 * 26 + 2 ^ 26 * 4) + 2 ^ (2 ^ 26) * 2 = 6.239 * 10 ^ 20201789 টি অক্ষর থাকতে হবে। মনে রাখবেন যে প্রতিটি স্ট্রিং একই সংখ্যক বার প্রদর্শিত হয়েছিল, সুতরাং এটি আপনার উপরের সীমানার প্রায় অর্ধেক।

— jimmy23013

যদি @ জিমি 23013 এবং আমার গণনা দুটিই সঠিক হয় তবে এই তিনটি সংখ্যার সংক্ষিপ্তকরণটি তৃতীয় প্রোগ্রামের আউটপুট দৈর্ঘ্যের সমান হওয়া উচিত।

— LegionMammal978

Answer 3

সিজাম, 17 + 34 + 72987060245299200000 = 72987060245299200051 আউটপুট বাইট

সহজ তুলনার জন্য এটি প্রায় 7.3 * 10 ¹⁹ ।

P
PP
Ke!

ছাপে:

3.141592653589793
3.1415926535897933.141592653589793
012345678910111213141516171819012345678910111213141516171918012...

ঠিক আছে, সর্বশেষে [0 1 2 ... 19]সংখ্যাটি এক সাথে স্কুয়েডের সমস্ত ক্রমশক্তি নিয়ে গঠিত । আমি এটি চেষ্টা করে দেখার সুপারিশ করব না ... (এটি হিসাবে চেষ্টা করুন)4e! স্বাদ পেতে )

এটি এখানে পরীক্ষা করুন: প্রোগ্রাম 1 , প্রোগ্রাম 2 , 3 প্রোগ্রামের সনে সংস্করণ ।

Answer 4

জেলি , আউটপুটটির 1.2 × 10 ²⁵⁶⁸ বাইট

ȷ
ȷ*
ȷ*!

1000 , 1000 ¹⁰⁰⁰ এবং 1000 ¹⁰⁰⁰ গণনা করে ^! ।

অনলাইনে চেষ্টা করে দেখুন: প্রথম প্রোগ্রাম | দ্বিতীয় প্রোগ্রাম | তৃতীয় প্রোগ্রাম (সংশোধিত)

বাইট গণনা উদ্দেশ্যে, জেলির বর্তমান সংস্করণেȷ বাইট 0xa0 হিসাবে এনকোড করা যেতে পারে ।

কিভাবে এটা কাজ করে

জেলিতে, ȷপাইথনের e(বৈজ্ঞানিক স্বরলিপি) হিসাবে সংখ্যা আক্ষরিক অভ্যন্তরের অভ্যন্তরে ব্যবহার করা যেতে পারে । উদাহরণস্বরূপ, 3ȷ4ফেরৎ 30000 । জেলি এর বৈজ্ঞানিক স্বরলিপি, এর সহগ অক্ষমতা 1 এবং এক্সপোনেন্ট অক্ষমতা 3 , তাই ȷ, 1ȷ3এবং 1000একই নম্বর ফিরে যান।

ȷ      Return 1000.

ȷ      Return 1000.
       Parse the remaining code as a program with input 1000.
 *     Hook; compute 1000 ** 1000.

ȷ      Return 1000.
       Parse the remaining code as a program with input 1000.
  !    Return 1000!.
 *     Fork; compute 1000 ** 1000!.

Comments

আপনার কি এপিএল এর সমতুল্য আছে ⍳?

— অ্যাডম

@ এনবিজেড হ্যাঁ APL এর সমতুল্য ıহয় R(ব্যাপ্তি)। ıএবং ȷজেলিতে সম্পূর্ণরূপে সম্পর্কিত নয় এমন কিছু করুন। আমি কয়েক মিনিটের মধ্যে একটি ব্যাখ্যা যুক্ত করব।

— ডেনিস

জেলিতে আমার প্রথম প্রচেষ্টা: কত আউটপুট ȷRRসৃষ্টি করে?

— অ্যাডম

@ এনবিজেড মোটামুটি ২.৪ মেগাবাইট।

— ডেনিস

আমি দেখতে ȷRRহয় ⍳¨⍳1000। আমি চেয়েছিলাম ⍳⍳1000। ডায়ালগ-এ, ⍳⍳7স্কোর 91244, ⍳⍳8স্কোর 803487, ⍳⍳9স্কোর 7904816, কারণ এটি সমস্ত সূচককে 1 × 2 × 3 × 4 × ... অ্যারে তালিকাভুক্ত করে। সুতরাং ⍳⍳1000তাত্ত্বিকভাবে (ডাব্লুএস সম্পূর্ণ!) প্রতিটি 1000 উপাদানগুলির 1000 টি তালিকা তৈরি করতে হবে!

— অ্যাডম

Answer 5

হেক্সাগনি , আউটপুট 1 + 3 + 6 = 10 বাইট

ভাল ... খুব চিত্তাকর্ষক স্কোর নয়, তবে কমপক্ষে আমি দৃsert়ভাবে বলতে পারি যে এটি সর্বোত্তম। একক বাইটের সাহায্যে কিছু মুদ্রণ এবং শেষ করা অসম্ভব , তাই আমরা দুটি বাইট দিয়ে শুরু করি:

!@

উন্মুক্ত কোডটি হ'ল

 ! @
. . .
 . .

এটি একটি বাইট প্রিন্ট করে এবং সমাপ্ত হয়।

তিনটি বাইট কোডের জন্য আমরা তিন বাইট আউটপুট প্রিন্ট করতে পারি। এই ক্ষেত্রে:

o!@

বা উন্মুক্ত:

 o !
@ . .
 . .

কপি করে প্রিন্ট 111। থেকে কোন ছোট হাতের অক্ষর dথেকে zকাজ করে এবং প্রিন্ট তার চরিত্র কোড। কোডগুলি 3 বাইট সহ 3 বাইট প্রিন্ট করার একমাত্র 23 টি উপায়।

অবশেষে, চার বাইটের জন্য, 6 বাইট প্রিন্ট করার জন্য 169 টি উপায় রয়েছে। যেহেতু তাদের কেউই সরাসরি-অগ্রবর্তী সমাধানের চেয়ে আকর্ষণীয় (বিজোড় নিয়ন্ত্রণ প্রবাহ ব্যতীত) আরও কিছু করতে পারে না, তাই আমি এটি উপস্থাপন করব:

o!!@

দুচোখে:

 o !
! @ .
 . .

আপনি এটা অনুমিত. এটি মুদ্রণ 111111।

আমি কীভাবে জানব যে এগুলি সর্বোত্তম? আমি 7000 চক্রের সর্বাধিক সীমাবদ্ধ আউটপুট সন্ধানের জন্য ট্রু মেশিন ক্যাটালগের জন্য লিখেছি ব্রুট ফরসারকে আমি অভিযোজিত করেছি (আমি মনে করি না আপনি 4 বাইট সহ একটি ব্যস্ত বিভার লিখতে পারবেন, এটি 7000 চক্রের জন্য চালিত তবে এখনও পরে সমাপ্ত হবে।)

Comments

সুতরাং ... ব্রুট ফোরার জনসমক্ষে পাওয়া যায়? আমি ব্রুট জোর করে এমন প্রোগ্রামগুলিতে আগ্রহী যেগুলি আউটপুট 12345এবং থামে। । কৌতূহলের স্বার্থে আপনি বুঝতে পারছেন ঠিক করুন।

— কুইন্টোপিয়া

@ কুইন্টোপিয়া এটি গিটহাব রেপোতে রয়েছে তবে শুভকামনা এটির সাথে একটি 8-বাইট প্রোগ্রাম খুঁজে পেয়েছে। ;)

— মার্টিন এন্ডার

ঠিক আছে, এর মধ্যে মাত্র 7 জন অজানা, এবং আপনি ইতিমধ্যে সত্য-মেশিন বাস্তবায়নগুলি খুঁজে পেতে 7 বাইট সমাধান অনুসন্ধান করার দক্ষতা প্রদর্শন করেছেন ...

— কুইন্টোপিয়া

Answer 6

গুরুত্ব সহকারে, 2025409 বাইট

1 বাইট:

N

(আউটপুট 11,756 বাইট উত্পাদন করে)

2 বাইট:

Nñ

আউটপুট 153,717 বাইট উত্পাদন করে

3 বাইট:

9!!

Produces 1,859,936 bytes of output

Seriously does not yet feature things like "all subsets" or "all combinations", so scores relatively low on this.

Comments

What does N do that makes it produce so much output?

— geokavel

Push the lyrics of 99 bottles of beer

— quintopia

Answer 7

Python 3, 1 + 22 + 23 = 56

9
id
abs

Output

9
<built-in function id>
<built-in function abs>

Print 9 and then the definition for id and abs.

Answer 8

Labyrinth, 1 + 2 + 4 = 7 bytes

Another low score, which I'm mainly posting because I've proven it to be optimal for the language.

Like Hexagony, Labyrinth can't print and terminate with a single byte, so we start with two bytes:

!@

Prints a zero and terminates.

For three bytes, we can't beat the naive solution:

!!@

This prints two bytes before terminating. There are a few other options, like printing -1 with (!@ or ~!@ or ,!@. There is one pretty cool solution though which uses source code rotation:

!>@

This prints a zero, then shifts the source to become @!>. At that point it hits a dead end, turns around, and executes the ! again on the way back, before terminating.

For four bytes, it's a bit more fun, because the only way to print 4 characters is to use the above trick:

!!>@

Print two zeroes, shift to @!!>, print another two zeroes.

In all of these cases I'm ignoring that you can also print a byte with \ or ., because those will always print exactly one byte, whereas ! will print at least one and potentially several.

Answer 9

Bash, 1726 bytes

(I fixed it now. Please consider upvoting.)

1 byte: "

Outputs:

>

307 bytes: id

Outputs:

uid=501(geokavel) gid=20(staff) groups=20(staff),701(com.apple.sharepoint.group.1),12(everyone),61(localaccounts),79(_appserverusr),80(admin),81(_appserveradm),98(_lpadmin),33(_appstore),100(_lpoperator),204(_developer),395(com.apple.access_ftp),398(com.apple.access_screensharing),399(com.apple.access_ssh)

1418 bytes: zip (Prints to STDOUT)

Copyright (c) 1990-2008 Info-ZIP - Type 'zip "-L"' for software license.
Zip 3.0 (July 5th 2008). Usage:
zip [-options] [-b path] [-t mmddyyyy] [-n suffixes] [zipfile list] [-xi list]
  The default action is to add or replace zipfile entries from list, which
  can include the special name - to compress standard input.
  If zipfile and list are omitted, zip compresses stdin to stdout.
  -f   freshen: only changed files  -u   update: only changed or new files
  -d   delete entries in zipfile    -m   move into zipfile (delete OS files)
  -r   recurse into directories     -j   junk (don't record) directory names
  -0   store only                   -l   convert LF to CR LF (-ll CR LF to LF)
  -1   compress faster              -9   compress better
  -q   quiet operation              -v   verbose operation/print version info
  -c   add one-line comments        -z   add zipfile comment
  -@   read names from stdin        -o   make zipfile as old as latest entry
  -x   exclude the following names  -i   include only the following names
  -F   fix zipfile (-FF try harder) -D   do not add directory entries
  -A   adjust self-extracting exe   -J   junk zipfile prefix (unzipsfx)
  -T   test zipfile integrity       -X   eXclude eXtra file attributes
  -y   store symbolic links as the link instead of the referenced file
  -e   encrypt                      -n   don't compress these suffixes
  -h2  show more help

Comments

Let me know what you think is wrong with it. As long as you don't wait too long, it really does always print the same thing. The kilobyte count at the end proves it.

— geokavel

There are two problems with this: 1. The first command produces no output at all, since STDERR is not an accepted output method. 2. The output of du depends on which files/directories are in the current folder, so this is not at all self-contained or reproducible.

— Dennis

@Dennis How do you know the first one is STDERR, if it's just printing usage? Ok, now I see how the second one breaks the rules

— geokavel

This requires zip. Zip is not included with bash.

— noɥʇʎԀʎzɐɹƆ

@CrazyPython I could change the title if necessary to bash with common utilities or default bash on Mac OS X.

— geokavel

Answer 10

MATL, 313

The current version of the language (3.1.0) is used, which is earlier than this challenge.

1. Code (predefined literal: produces number 2, which is implicitly printed):

   H
   

   Output (1 byte):

   2
   

2. Code (produces number pi, which is implicitly printed with 15 decimals):

   YP
   

   Output (17 bytes):

   3.141592653589793
   

3. Code (numbers from 1 to 99, which are printed by default with spaces in between):

    99:
   

   Output (295 bytes):

   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
   

Answer 11

Processing, 39 bytes

Deterministic

1 byte:

print(X);

Outputs 0.

9 bytes:

print(PI);

Outputs 3.1415927

29 bytes:

print(P3D);

Outputs processing.opengl.PGraphics3D

Non-deterministic, >= 129 bytes

>= 32 bytes:

print(g);

Outputs processing.awt.PGraphicsJava2D@ + [mem-address]

>= 32 bytes:

print( g);

Outputs processing.awt.PGraphicsJava2D@ + [mem-address]

>= 65 bytes: (Thank you to @anOKsquirrel for this suggestion.)

print(g,g);

Outputs

processing.awt.PGraphicsJava2D@ + [mem-address]
processing.awt.PGraphicsJava2D@ + [mem-address]

Comments

in the second section could you have used something like 1,g or g,g? or even g+g?

— anOKsquirrel

Answer 12

JavaScript, 1 + 3 + 18 = 18 22

Not a very interesting answer but probably the best JavaScript is capable of.

alert(1)
alert(.1)
alert(1/9)

Added 4 score thanks to @UndefinedFunction!

Outputs as text:

1
0.1
0.1111111111111111

Comments

If you just write alert() you get output of undefined (at least in Safari).

— geokavel

@geokavel Oh really? In Chrome it just shows an empty alert. I haven't checked Firefox. In Safari the score would be even less. :s

— user81655

alert(.1) gives 0.1, and alert(1/9) gives 0.1111111111111111

— jrich

@UndefinedFunction Nice tips, thanks!

— user81655

Writing alert gives me function alert() { [native code] }

— ev3commander

Answer 13

Befunge, 2 + 4 + 6 = 12

.@
..@
...@

Any snippet shorter than length 2 either cannot output, or cannot terminate its output.

In Befunge, . outputs the top value of the stack as an integer, followed by a space. A space is not a newline, so it is included in the count. Additionally, the stack is "infinitely" filled up with 0's, so the programs output (respectively):

0 
0 0 
0 0 0 

Comments

..<@ prints 8 bytes.

— jimmy23013

Answer 14

SmileBASIC, 1+4+10= 15 bytes

Program 1:

The shortest way to print something is with ? (PRINT) and a single character. This can be either a number or a variable name, and it doesn't matter since they're all the same length.

?1
1

Program 2:

Now we have access to a few more things. The longest expression which can be made would be one of the constants #Y, #L, or #R, which have values 128, 256, and 512, respectively. However, instead of that, I use a comma so that (in this case) 3 extra spaces are printed.

?1,
1   

Program 3:

With 3 characters, you can write E-notation numbers:

?1E9
1000000000

Answer 15

HQ9+, 71304

9

Prints the 11,884-character lyrics of "99 bottles of beer"

99

Prints "99 bottles of beer" twice

999

Prints "99 bottles of beer" three times

Answer 16

Japt -Q, Outputs 1.0123378918474279e+150 bytes

The full number is

1,012,337,891,847,427,807,734,770,805,740,683,255,348,979,141,331,502,541,182,800,555,980,960,810,784,280,906,237,433,006,787,771,597,919,201,659,212,694,207,520,340,705,280,000,000,000,000,000,000,568

bytes.

# 1

M

Outputs

{"P":3.141592653589793,"Q":1.618033988749895,"T":6.283185307179586}

For 67 bytes. (Credit to Shaggy)

# 2

LÆ

Outputs

[null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null,null]

which is 501 bytes.

(Credit to @Shaggy)

# 3

;Eá

Outputs all permutations of the 95 printable ASCII characters in the format ["...","...","..."...], which is

$1,012,337,891,847,427,807,734,770,805,740,683,255,348,979,141,331,502,541,182,800,555,980,960,810,784,280,906,237,433,006,787,771,597,919,201,659,212,694,207,520,340,705,280,000,000,000,000,000,000,001$ bytes of output.

---

You can get an infinite amount of output bytes if you use the -F flag in Japt. What it does is that if the last expression of the program evaluates to false, it outputs the value specified in the flag instead. So I guess the score for Japt-F"Insert Super Long String Here" is infinity.

Comments

You can get 501 bytes out of the second one.

— Shaggy

And 4 bytes or a risky 8 out of the first.

— Shaggy

A-ha! I knew there was a way to get undefined in 1 byte: $.

— Shaggy

@Shaggy Or I could use K and get 26 bytes of output, but your 501 byter is just genius

— Embodiment of Ignorance

Does output not have to be deterministic?

— Shaggy

Answer 17

Malbolge, 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 bytes

(=aN
(&a`M
(=a`_L

Try it online: first, second, third

Outputs:

r
ll
xxx

Brute forced. Assumes \0 is not a valid output character

With \0:

cP
cbO
cbaN

Outputs:

\0
\0\0
\0\0\0

Answer 18

scg, 1 + 27 + 188 = 216

First one:

1

Just prints 1, as the stack is outputted at the end of program.

Second:

.d

Prints debug info, which should look like this:

Stack: []
Array Markers: []

Third:

99r

adds 99 to stack, then uses range function. Outputs 01234567891011.... (this is one of those times I wish I implemented the factorial function. I haven't)

Answer 19

Marbelous 1 + 1 + 2 = 4 bytes of output

Marbelous is hamstrung here by having two-byte instructions. Pointless comments or unnecessary whitespace are the only ways to get an odd byte count.

print "A" and terminate:

`A

print "B" and terminate, with an empty EOL comment

`B#

print "CD" and terminate:

`C`D

Answer 20

Mathematica, 6 + 461 + 763 = 1230 1225 618 163 bytes of output

%  (* -> Out[0] *)

?D  (* ->

D[f, x] gives the partial derivative ∂ f/∂ x. 
                                              n        n
D[f, {x, n}] gives the multiple derivative ∂  f/∂ x . 
D[f, x, y, …] differentiates f successively with respect to x, y, ….
D[f, {{x , x , …}}] for a scalar f
        1   2
     gives the vector derivative (∂ f/∂ x , ∂ f/∂ x , …). 
                                             1             2
D[f, {array}] gives a tensor derivative.

*)

?Do (* ->

Do[expr, {i   }] evaluates expr i    times. 
           max                   max
Do[expr, {i, i   }] evaluates expr with the variable i successively taking on the values 1 through i    (in steps of 1). 
              max                                                                                   max
Do[expr, {i, i   , i   }] starts with i = i   . 
              min   max                    min
Do[expr, {i, i   , i   , di}] uses steps di. 
              min   max
Do[expr, {i, {i , i , …}}] uses the successive values i , i , ….
               1   2                                     1   2
Do[expr, {i, i   , i   }, {j, j   , j   }, …] evaluates expr looping over different values of j, etc. for each i. 
              min   max        min   max

*)

Currently, the last two use Information to get documentation about the symbols, which can output many bytes. Note that this was run on the 10.1 command-line MathKernel.

Answer 21

Javascript, 72 bytes

This works in the Mozilla JSShell Javascript command line interpreter.

1 byte: 1

Outputs 1

35 bytes: gc

Outputs

function gc() {
    [native code]
}

36 bytes: run

Outputs

function run() {
    [native code]
}

Comments

So...Node.js?..

— CalculatorFeline

@CalculatorFeline I'm not familiar with Node.js, but on my Mac if you type in js on the command line, you get a JavaScript shell.

— geokavel

-bash: js: command not found Please specify more.

— CalculatorFeline

@CalculatorFeline I'm getting the same message. Maybe they took out js in the latest version of Bash.

— geokavel

gc doesn't seem to exist in TIO Node, so please find an implementation or remove this answer.

— CalculatorFeline

Answer 22

Octave, 2818417 bytes

e

14 bytes for ans = 2.7183\n

pi

14 bytes for ans = 3.1416\n

doc

Display the entire documentation. 2818389 bytes, counted with dd Try it online! because evalc didn't work.

Answer 23

SmileBASIC 4, 1 + 13 + 15 = 29 bytes

This is going to be similar to 12Me21's SmileBASIC 3 answer, with a couple adjustments.

1

As before, the shortest amount of code to produce some output is 2 bytes: ? (PRINT) and some single-byte expression. The consensus is that PRINT does not produce a newline when it advances to the next line, due to the way the text screen works. So this results in one byte of output.

?1
1

2

With 3 bytes, we can do something different. SB4 introduces INSPECT, aliased as ??, which prints info about a single value. If we give it an empty string, for example, this can produce much more output than SB3 could. This gets us 13 bytes.

??"
STRING: (0)""

3

We have 4 bytes to work with, so we have to decide what we should do to maximize our output. Going with ?? is a safe bet; we only have 2 bytes to use on our expression, but the additional output of INSPECT is basically free. So I use it to print a label string. This is 15 bytes.

??@A
STRING: (2)"@A"

The total is 29 bytes.

Answer 24

Microscript II, 23+47+71=141 bytes

1: C

The stringification of continuations is not strictly defined by the specs, but in the reference implementation this, run on its own, yields a 23 byte string.

<Continuation @t=\d\d\dus> (\d represents a digit, which digits varies).

On my computer, at least, this does, in fact, always take between about 180 and about 400 microseconds to run.

The first use I've ever actually had for this instruction.

2: CP

47 bytes of output- the output from the first one twice with a newline in between.

3: CPP

Fairly straightforward. 71 bytes of output- the output from the first one three times with newlines in between.

Comments

Is this deterministic? If I understand you right, it contains varying digits...

— Adám

@NBZ It does not produce the exact same strings every time, but it has produced strings of the same length every time I've tested it so far.

— SuperJedi224

Maybe leave it as-is, but provide an alternate answer that is truly deterministic?

— Adám

Answer 25

PowerShell, ~4300 bytes

Approximate output length, given the system that it's run on. All the snippets below are deterministic, in that if given the same initial state of the computer will output the same text, just that in practice the output could change from execution to execution.

Length 1, 107 bytes

?

This is an alias for Where-Object. It will output a user prompt asking for additional information:

cmdlet Where-Object at command pipeline position 1
Supply values for the following parameters:
Property: 

Length 2, 113 bytes

rp

This is an alias for Remove-ItemProperty. It will output a user prompt asking for additional information:

cmdlet Remove-ItemProperty at command pipeline position 1
Supply values for the following parameters:
Path[0]: 

Just barely longer than the length 1 snippet.

Length 3, ~4100 bytes

gps

This is an alias for Get-Process which will output a formatted table of all running processes on the system:

Handles  NPM(K)    PM(K)      WS(K) VM(M)   CPU(s)     Id ProcessName                                                                                          
-------  ------    -----      ----- -----   ------     -- -----------                                                                                
     85       8     1232       4452    46     0.14    544 armsvc                                                                                               
    151      10     6800       9888    39     0.58   5116 audiodg                                                                                              
    480      25     6060      17200   124     0.84   4536 AuthManSvr            
...

Comments

"output could change" - that's an understatement. In praxis, it would be impossible to reset the machine to the same state. Maybe a more deterministic alternative to the third?

— Adám

Impracticality does not preclude determinism ... Unless you're meaning a different definition of "deterministic," in which case you should explicitly state so in the challenge.

— AdmBorkBork

According to you, almost every program is deterministic, given the exact same machine state. The only exception would be equipment with true RNGs, e.g. based on microphone noise or camera input.

— Adám

@NBZ True. I would certainly hope that almost every program is deterministic. Are you intending "immutable" perhaps?

— AdmBorkBork

Answer 26

Javascript, 312 + 318 + 624 = 1254 bytes of output

$
$$
$+$

The two functions $ and $$ are available in all major browsers' consoles, as shortcuts for document.querySelector and document.querySelectorAll respectively. Different browsers have native code coerced to strings somewhat differently from each other, and IE uses plain JS in each function resulting in much longer representation.

For the byte count, I'm taking the length of the string representation of each rather than the sometimes-modified console display, so the total bytes are, for each of the following browsers:

• Chrome: 56 + 57 + 112 = 225 bytes
• IE: 312 + 318 + 624 = 1254
• Firefox: 33 + 33 + 66 = 132

(I'm considering the IE result to be the "official" count because it's the longest.)

For non-console browser environments, the largest outputs come from the following:

1
!1 // Or '{}' if being fed to a function instead of beginning a statement
Map

Results length by browser:

• Chrome: 1 + 5 (or 15 if {} is usable) + 32 = 38 (or 48) bytes
• IE: 1 + 5 (or 15 if {} is usable) + 38 = 44 (or 54)
• Firefox: 1 + 5 (or 15 if {} is usable) + 36 = 42 (or 52)

These two sets of input produce the largest output possible in all of these browsers and consoles. To prove this, let's check all alternatives:

• Existing variables: We can find all native available variables with maximum three characters with Object.getOwnPropertyNames(window).filter(x=>x.length<=3), and then map them to their string outputs to determine the larger ones. (Note that in some browsers such as Firefox, certain special console variables cannot be accessed this way as they're not a property of the window.)
• JS has a limited number of types of literals that can be created with so few characters:
  • Per the spec, decimal numbers must be a decimal digit (1234567890) optionally followed by . and more decimal digits and/or an exponent part, or be a . followed by one or more decimal digits and optionally an exponent part. Other kinds of numbers must be either 0o, 0x, or 0b (or uppercase forms), followed by one or more digits. For our purposes, we can deduce the following:
    • There are only ten single-character numbers, which are the integers 0 through 9. The only two-character numbers are integers 0-99 (0-9 by adding a decimal after), and the numbers 0.1 through 0.9 by omitting the initial zero. The only three-character numbers are 0-999, including 0x0-0xf, 0o0-0o7, 0b0, and 0b1, the exponential 1e1 through 9e9 (10 characters), and the numbers 0.1-9.9 and .01 through .99. While not technically a number literal, NaN can also be referenced in three characters.
  • Strings, arrays, and regexps, each of which can take at max only a single character of content. An array could be filled with $, a comma, or a single-digit number. Arrays with only one element are coerced to strings as the element itself. Empty arrays become empty strings.
  • Depending on environment, it may or may not be possible to create simple objects with three characters. Normally, {} alone at the beginning of a script would be treated as an enclosure rather than creating an object. eval({}) returns undefined, eval({$}) returns the $ function. There are insufficient characters to surround the {} in ().
• There are no keywords that are short enough to use. The keywords if, in, do, new, for, try, var, and let would all require a minimum of two other characters to use, exceeding the limit.
• Available unary operators include ~, +, -, !, ++, and --. The two-character operators can only be used with a single character variable, of which there is only one ($), which yields NaN. The other four operators can be used with any one- or two- character value, of which there are:
  • Several variables. (On some consoles $, $_, $0, $1, $2, $3, $4, $, $$, $x ). When used with these operators, the results are limited to -1, true, false, and NaN.
  • 109 numbers. Results: Integers -100 through 99, -0.9 through -0.1, true, false.
  • Empty strings. Results: -1, 0 (-0 becomes 0 on toString), true.
  • The results of any of the one-character values above associated with a one-character unary operator. New results: None.
• Usable binary operators (which must be a single character to have room left for both operands) are +, -, *, /, %, <, >, &, |, ^. They can only be used with a single-character value on each side. Options for values include $ and integers 0-9. Results of all combinations of these include Infinity, some numbers and binary values mentioned above, and numerous fractions which are coerced to strings of 19 characters or less (1/7 is 19 characters, unlike 1/9 suggested above which is only 18), and the text representation of $ preceded or followed by a single-digit integer or itself.
• Finally, all remaining operators and expressions: The member operator . requires an existing variable and a identifier referring to a property. All uses of this here result in undefined. Surrounding a value in ( ) returns the value, as does assigning it with =. Using () or `` to call a value as a function results in undefined or errors with all available values.

Adding all this up, there are a grand total of 1651 possible outputs when using a Chrome console. The longest outputs for one, two, and three characters are from $, $$, and $+$ respectively.

Answer 27

dc, 2+5+18=25 bytes

1: Ff yields (Try it online!):

15

2: Fdf yields (Try it online!):

15
15

3: Fd^f yields (Try it online!)

437893890380859375

None of which are particularly interesting, but dc isn't really great for spitting out piles of output. I do like that each answer builds on the previous. Anyway, F is just the number 15; f prints the entire stack; d duplicates top-of-stack; ^ raises next-to-top-of-stack to the power of top-of-stack (in this case, 15^15). I don't believe this can be topped in dc.

Answer 28

Ruby, 3+14+28 = 45 bytes

Why did I do this.

p

Prints nil.

$>

Prints #<IO:<STDOUT>>.

dup

Prints something along the lines of #<Object:0x0000000003610988>.

irb

Launches an instance of Interactive Ruby. Upon exiting, the returned object is #<IRB::Irb: @context=#<IRB::Context:0x0000000003643040>, @signal_status=:IN_EVAL, @scanner=#<RubyLex:0x00000000038900a0>> for 121, but since it requires you to press ^D or something to actually exit the irb instance, I wasn't sure if it'd actually count as a solution in "3 bytes" so I'm not actually including it in the score unless it gets an OK.

Answer 29

Perl 6, 53 (17 + 18 + 18) bytes

e
-e
e*e

1. e outputs $e$ to 15 decimal places
2. -e outputs $-e$ to 15 decimal places
3. e*e outputs $e^2$, but oddly, it gives one more decimal place

Answer 30

Runic Enchantments, 4,000,000 bytes of output

The first program is:

a@

Takes 2 bytes to: push a value to the stack, print a value from the stack, and terminate. In this case it prints 10 (though any integer value from 0 to 16 are also just as valid)

For 3 bytes:

aY@

Prints 10000, Again, a could be 1 through 16 inclusive (in order to generate more output than the original program, 0 is potentially valid under other operators) and there aren't a whole lot of operators that take a single input and produce any output, much less longer output. XCYZ:E are the only real options. aY@ is just the one that results in the most output.

P$!;

According to language specification, this runs infinitely. However as the interpreter has a built in "ok, that's enough" maximum execution limit, this is the most output achievable in 4 characters (and TIO cuts off execution after ~130,000 bytes for exceeding 128kib) and as the interpreter defines the language, this works. And while I have raised that threshold once before (from 10k steps to 1 million), I don't plan on messing with it any time soon.

Bigger?

If I invoke the three assumptions I made here, then sure.

`AA@

Which works out to Ack(65,Ack(65,64)), which aren't terribly large values to go shoving into the Ackerman function initially--certainly smaller than the 255 in the older post--but its ok, we can call Ack twice in 4 instructions.

And only god knows what it'll print.

_{Note: the A instruction has since then been made the Math meta-instruction, which consumes 3 objects on the stack: a char for what instruction to perform and then two inputs, x and y. As such this program doesn't actually do anything, both because neither A nor @ map to a math function and because two subsequent calls results in a stack underflow.}