Maven (famous)@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.ml · 10 months agoSTOP WRITING Clemmy.worldimagemessage-square92fedilinkarrow-up1129arrow-down19
arrow-up1120arrow-down1imageSTOP WRITING Clemmy.worldMaven (famous)@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.ml · 10 months agomessage-square92fedilink
minus-squareMeanEYE@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·10 months 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-210 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-up1·10 months 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.