Maven (famous)@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.ml · 2 years agoSTOP WRITING Clemmy.worldimagemessage-square92fedilinkarrow-up1110arrow-down14
arrow-up1106arrow-down1imageSTOP WRITING Clemmy.worldMaven (famous)@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.ml · 2 years agomessage-square92fedilink
minus-squareMeanEYE@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·2 years agoJust use brainfuck for everything. The entry barrier for the programming industry needs to be higher anyway.
minus-squaredejected_warp_core@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·edit-22 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-squarefrezik@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2 years agoFor demonstrating to CS freshmen that Turing Completeness isn’t that remarkable of a language feature: very highly efficient.
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.