Also of course this was not written entirely by hand, but with a toolchain as the author says somewhere else, it's not exactly feasible to write this by hand.
the entire sadistic point of the esoteric exercise is to dwell in the agony of unaccomplishment, not roll it up using a toolchain.
> anything can be trivially transpiled to any turing-complete language regardless of the "difficulty" of the language once basic operators are established
Yes! It already was. There exists the Nagoya toolchain which I'm aware of, but it's generated code simply is too inefficient and unstable (from my testing) to be ran on contemporary machines. To write efficient Malbolge programs, like I just did, you'd need to implement a good chunk of "basic" operations in Malbolge (or, for the record, low level assembly which maps really well to Malbolge itself).
> the entire sadistic point of the esoteric exercise is to dwell in the agony of unaccomplishment, not roll it up using a toolchain.
It's easy to program assembly, it's hard to write a compiler that targets good assembly. As humans we've been striving to make good compilers for ages, yet still we're not even close. So, I'd say, the fact that I made it _using_ a toolchain makes it even more impressive.
> this audience knows anything can be trivially transpiled to any turing-complete language
This is the definition of Turing-completeness and I'd be surprised if this audience didn't know it. But I wouldn't be so sure about it being trivial. Two questions:
1) How do you "obviously" target cyclic tag systems and the Rule 110 automation?
2) How do you make it efficient? If we assume the simplest way of transpiling, we'll get nowhere near _actual usability_ (to some degree) which MalbolgeLisp exhibits.
In any case this definitely feeds my intellectual curiosity. Even if it's indeed trivial to transpile between languages, I have zero idea how to go about that... and besides, I for one always love reading about Malbolge.