• dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        For demonstrating to CS freshmen that Turing Completeness isn’t that remarkable of a language feature: very highly efficient.

    • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Can be compressed very efficiently. I do dread the thought of writing a driver in brainfuck.

      • MatFi@lemmy.thias.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        9 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.

      • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        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?

        • MeanEYE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          Hardware is complex and mysterious enough without added complexity of an esoteric language.