Maven (famous)@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.ml · 9 months agoSTOP WRITING Clemmy.worldimagemessage-square154fedilinkarrow-up1839arrow-down160
arrow-up1779arrow-down1imageSTOP WRITING Clemmy.worldMaven (famous)@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.ml · 9 months agomessage-square154fedilink
minus-squareMeanEYE@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up38·9 months agoJust use brainfuck for everything. The entry barrier for the programming industry needs to be higher anyway.
minus-squaredejected_warp_core@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up13·edit-29 months 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-squarefrezik@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up6·9 months agoFor demonstrating to CS freshmen that Turing Completeness isn’t that remarkable of a language feature: very highly efficient.
minus-squareMeanEYE@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up6·9 months agoCan be compressed very efficiently. I do dread the thought of writing a driver in brainfuck.
minus-squareMatFi@lemmy.thias.xyzlinkfedilinkarrow-up5·edit-29 months 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_core@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·9 months 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-squareMeanEYE@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up5·9 months agoHardware is complex and mysterious enough without added complexity of an esoteric language.
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.
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.