From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on September 30, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Quick predendum to the following... a useful program CAN be written in HQ9+! A program to calculate square numbers Input is passed as the actual program code - you type a number of Q's equal to the root. Output is passed as the number of Q's printed to the screen. Count the Q's to gain your answer. Voila - a useful program. At least to anyone who doesn't know their squares up to about 20^2 and has the patience to count through the output. ---tahrey, 14/10/06

I don't understand this statement:

It is vacuously true that all useful programs written in HQ9+ run over twice as fast as the same programs written in any other language.

This would be the case if no programs could be written in HQ9+, but when there exists such a program, you can make no vacuously true statement. I have erased it for this reason. Restore it if you wish, but only with explanation.

Derrick Coetzee 17:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It said "all useful programs", which is different from "all programs". I don't believe useful programs exist in HQ9+. I'll let someone else restore it if considered appropriate... Κσυπ Cyp   19:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice that. My mistake. Derrick Coetzee 04:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course it's vacuously true that all useful HQ9+ programs run twice as fast. It's also vacuously true that they run half as fast, and three times as fast, and so on, isn't it? Unless someone (e.g. the creator of HQ9+) has said this, it should be deleted.

Huh? This page is listed on votes for deletion but its entry doesn't exist? What's going on? Derrick Coetzee 00:46, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Someone wants all programming language articles to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Esoteric programming language related. Κσυπ Cyp   2004年10月2日 (土) 11:47 (UTC)

The python script only goes to bottle number 9, as far as I can tell... Of course, I've never programmed in Python, so I might be wrong?--Kiwibird 21:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed the description of HQ9++ as "an object-oriented language backward compatible with HQ9+." It's clearly not backwards compatible since the program ++ does something different in the two languages -Olaf Davis 01:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a fairly silly objection (to a fairly silly concept). If you run an HQ9++ program in HQ9+, the useless accumulator is incremented just as many times; you just don't instantiate any useless objects along the way. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly it is silly, but I think it's no more silly than the level one has to descend to to have a serious discussion about the language in the first place. The entire thing is a joke, and I personally think it's a better joke if you count + and ++ as doing different things.--Olaf Davis 16:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is backwards compatible, in that ++ increments the accumulator twice in both languages. The instantiated object will be ignored if the program was written for HQ9+... Superm401 - Talk 13:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==

A couple of days ago I posted a HQ9+ Programs Source code on the page and now it's gone. Whoever deleted it please could you tell me a reason for so? It was a good example to show. + it was a better hello world program.

• I didn't delete it, but I agree it should have been deleted. It was a big silly chunk of ASCII art that added nothing to the article. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 19:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)