Esolangs get dismissed way too quickly. Sure, they’re terrible choices for building production software—but that’s not what they’re for, and judging them by that standard misses the point entirely. What an esolang actually is An esoteric programming language is built with a purpose other than everyday programming. It might be trying to: explore a weird computational model strip syntax down to the bare minimum challenge the programmer for fun act as software art parody programming culture test out a language‑design idea serve as a puzzle or intellectual toy Think of languages like: Brainfuck — eight commands, a memory tape, and a whole lot of head‑scratching Befunge — code that runs in two dimensions Piet — programs made of colored blocks in an image INTERCAL — a satire of programming norms Shakespeare — code written like a play Chef — programs disguised as recipes Brainfuck is a great example: it’s tiny, awkward, and universal. Using it forces you to confront how memory, pointers, and loops really work. Why “esolangs are a waste of time” misses the mark Calling esolangs useless assumes that the only value a programming language can have is practical productivity. That’s like saying a poem is pointless because you can’t use it to build a bookshelf. Esolangs matter because they expose the hidden assumptions baked into normal languages: What does a variable really do? How does control flow work without if statements? How little machinery do you need for universal computation? How much does syntax shape the way we think? What happens when code becomes a picture, a play, or a recipe? Mainstream languages hide these questions behind layers of helpful abstractions. Esolangs peel those layers off and make the underlying ideas visible. The practical upside (yes, there is one) Even though esolangs aren’t meant for production, they teach skills that do transfer: solving problems under extreme constraints building interpreters and virtual machines separating meaning from syntax debugging without fancy tools thinking creatively about representation understanding why real languages have the features they do There’s academic work backing this up: esolangs are useful for teaching computational concepts and exploring language design. The fair caveat If your goal is to ship maintainable software, learning Brainfuck instead of Python or Rust is obviously inefficient. That part of the criticism is true. But the leap from “not good for production” to “therefore worthless” is wrong. The real conclusion Esolangs aren’t failed attempts at practical languages. They’re laboratories, puzzles, jokes, artworks, and thought experiments. They’re intentionally bad at being production tools and intentionally good at revealing what production tools hide. That’s their value—and it’s a different kind of value than writing a web server.

Play is not the opposite of serious innovation; it is often where innovation begins. Dice games helped develop probability, strange mechanical toys contributed to programmable-machine thinking, accidental observations led to penicillin and the microwave, and side projects produced products like Gmail. An esolang may never become useful software, but it can train curiosity, reveal hidden layers of computation, or inspire an idea nobody would have reached through purely practical thinking. If the experiment is harmless and intellectually engaging, its value does not need to be justified by immediate productivity.

“they’re worth keeping around” is a conclusion, not a strong argument . Innovation turns curiosity into new capabilities; waste produces nothing beyond the moment. Even failed experiments generate information about what works and what does not. Today’s impractical idea may become tomorrow’s breakthrough. Innovation expands the range of possible solutions. It improves tools, knowledge, and quality of life. Playful exploration is often how unexpected discoveries begin. Its value is not always immediate; some benefits appear years later. A harmless experiment that teaches, inspires, or opens a new path is not wasted time.

if you have no real argument against keeping innovation and playful things then i would argue that you lost this debate :-)