For the same effort you put into any piece of art, you could always do something more economical, and yet lots of people take their art very seriously.

It's a piece of technology, and it has function. It just hasn't an obvious use case. If someone publishes a programming language, usually they provide examples and a descripton on the purpose of the language, or in which way it improves over other existing languages. It doesnt make any sence to publish a technology which has no obvious use case without any explanation of its intended purpose.

Do you think being a piece of technology means that it can't also be art?

(They could stand to put some examples on the front page, that's fair.)

Technology always includes aspects of art; but form follows function.

Your definition of usefulness and mine differ. What you find useful, I find contrived. What I find useful, you find dull. The author was indeed serious about it, in the fact that it's a thing you can play with. Brainfuck doesn't need usefulness to exist. Typescript either. It doesn't always have to be advancing the art of programming. I'd say these fun projects advance the art of mankind.

> these fun projects advance the art of mankind

In which way?

Someone will attempt a Mozart-themed binary sort. It will cause them to either have profound insight into Mozart, or profound insight into programming. Possibly both. Paving the way for the next SoundCloud. You never know. Not everything seems as useless on the surface.

> Not everything seems as useless on the surface.

And vice versa.

Yes, other things can be fun, they can even be fun while being practically useful, but this was still created for fun.

Are you the author? Why/how do you know?

I'm not the author. I thought you were asking the people of HN since you asked here rather than emailing the author. I've been interested in the esoteric programming language scene since 2009 and in my experience most of the work is done for the joy of it, and the joy of exploring intellectual curiosity. It's true that the author here could be an exception but, as I say, you should contact them directly if it's very important that you understand their motivation.

Well, it's posted here by someone for some reason. I didn't search for it, but was curious what the purpuse is of this idea, since I have a lot to do with MIDI, algorithmic composition and programming languages.

> Maybe. but with the same effort one can build a useful language, even adding new ideas that will advance development, which is also fun.

So others must have fun the way you approve of? Otherwise they are having fun wrong?

Nobody is obligated to "advance development". Also many innovative ideas come from projects that are done without the expectation to get value out of it.

> it seems the author was rather serious about his language

You kind of have to be serious about something in order to invest many hours into creating and finishing it. It can still be fun.

> You kind of have to be serious about something in order to invest many hours into creating and finishing it.

Well, then at least there must have been some vision or goal, thus my question.