prolog-to-minizinc VS jellylanguage

Prolog is a homoiconic language with built-in unification and backtracking. These features are remarkably useful for metaprogramming: I once wrote an interpreter for a functional programming language in less than 80 lines of Prolog code.

At least on the Code Golf Stack Exchange, I see a lot of people using esolangs for golfing (two random examples: Jelly [1] and O5AB1E [2]). I expect that it could be a line or two shorter at least with a change of language. As I recall some of the golfing langs also have pretty sophisticated compression techniques for strings, although they might be optimized for dictionary words. Careful distinction: they are all optimizing for bytes used, not characters used.

I don't want to neglect your shameless plug, but I struggle enough to find a solution to some of the puzzles I wrote (hence the undo), so finding the shortest path is a little daunting.

[1] https://github.com/DennisMitchell/jellylanguage

[2] https://github.com/Adriandmen/05AB1E

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: I am also solving most of these problems in Jelly, a recreational language designed for code-golf. They are in the same repository under the jelly folder.

Jelly (put the input in the first command line argument):

Yes it is totally possible, Batch script is Turing complete afterall. Since you found Python tutorials, you can just apply the same concepts in Batch. The difficulty depends on the complexity of the language you're trying to make. I would recommend trying to make a stack-based language first, with the syntax similar to golfing languages (ie, one character is one "command", check out https://github.com/DennisMitchell/jellylanguage), since that would be the easiest. But obviously if you're up to it you could make a fully fledged programming language.

This is a basic version of many commonly used ideas for string compression in golfing languages. Jelly [0] is a good example of a more practical and versatile approach that builds on ideas such as this.

[0] https://github.com/DennisMitchell/jellylanguage/wiki/Tutoria...

(As an aside, some people "stop" here and then make programming languages based on this - because that is a simple interpreter... you could write a compiler for this language, or extend it - and the great golfing languages take that starting spot and keep going - don't worry about trying to replicate it, it takes some insanity to go that far - the point is that a stack based language is the starting spot for some impressive systems... like the JVM itself)

If you like code to be as short and unreadable as possible, try out Jelly.

Arguably, however, if you think about "High Level" in terms of "how many keystrokes do you need to do X complex task" (kinda like some mean komolgorov complexity measure over a set of tasks) then code golf languages could probably be the most "high level". Take Jelly for instance. Incomprehensible garbage when written, but goddamn if it isn't character efficient.

I am waiting for a time when we get Angular or React in Jelly [1]

[1] https://github.com/DennisMitchell/jellylanguage/wiki/Tutoria...

Being honest with naming things is also a great roundabout way to ensure you write maintainable, readable code. If the name is honest and it feels awkward, it's a good red flag that there might be a problem with the approach you're taking. I think code golf languages (a-la [0]) are a good example of this approach as well, when your language is as terse as possible, giving very deep consideration to what the language actually does is crucial.

[0] https://github.com/DennisMitchell/jellylanguage/wiki/Atoms