Maven (famous) to Programmer [email protected] • 3 years agoSTOP WRITING Clemmy.worldimagemessage-square154fedilinkarrow-up1847arrow-down160
arrow-up1787arrow-down1imageSTOP WRITING Clemmy.worldMaven (famous) to Programmer [email protected] • 3 years agomessage-square154fedilink
minus-squareMeanEYElinkfedilink38•3 years agoJust use brainfuck for everything. The entry barrier for the programming industry needs to be higher anyway.
minus-squareDejected Warp Corelinkfedilink13•edit-23 years agoFor the programmer? Very no. For saving space if run via interperter? No. For running compiled for conventional CPUs? No. Compared to CISC instruction sets? Absolutely no. BF might be highly efficient if crunched down to a bit-packed representation (3 bits per instruction) and run on an FPGA that understands it.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink6•3 years agoFor demonstrating to CS freshmen that Turing Completeness isn’t that remarkable of a language feature: very highly efficient.
minus-squareMeanEYElinkfedilink6•3 years agoCan be compressed very efficiently. I do dread the thought of writing a driver in brainfuck.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink5•edit-23 years ago Can be compressed very efficiently. Which basically means: “You have to write more code than actually needed”. It’s more a con than a pro in my eyes.
minus-squareDejected Warp Corelinkfedilink2•3 years agoHot take: As a VM with only eight instructions, it’s very easy to code and securely sandbox. Maybe BF has utility as a compilation target?
minus-squareMeanEYElinkfedilink5•3 years agoHardware is complex and mysterious enough without added complexity of an esoteric language.
minus-squareMinekPo1 [it/she]linkfedilink1•3 years agodecided to check : mandelbrot can be compressed by 87.5% by gzip on maximum compression strength
Just use brainfuck for everything. The entry barrier for the programming industry needs to be higher anyway.
Is brainfuck efficient ?
For the programmer? Very no.
For saving space if run via interperter? No.
For running compiled for conventional CPUs? No.
Compared to CISC instruction sets? Absolutely no.
BF might be highly efficient if crunched down to a bit-packed representation (3 bits per instruction) and run on an FPGA that understands it.
For demonstrating to CS freshmen that Turing Completeness isn’t that remarkable of a language feature: very highly efficient.
its efficient in terms of compiler size ! nya
Can be compressed very efficiently. I do dread the thought of writing a driver in brainfuck.
Which basically means: “You have to write more code than actually needed”. It’s more a con than a pro in my eyes.
Hot take: As a VM with only eight instructions, it’s very easy to code and securely sandbox. Maybe BF has utility as a compilation target?
Why specifically a driver ?
Hardware is complex and mysterious enough without added complexity of an esoteric language.
decided to check : mandelbrot can be compressed by 87.5% by gzip on maximum compression strength