Maven (famous)@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.ml · rok temuSTOP WRITING Clemmy.worldimagemessage-square150fedilinkarrow-up1845arrow-down160
arrow-up1785arrow-down1imageSTOP WRITING Clemmy.worldMaven (famous)@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.ml · rok temumessage-square150fedilink
minus-squaredejected_warp_core@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up13·edit-2rok temuFor 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·rok temuFor demonstrating to CS freshmen that Turing Completeness isn’t that remarkable of a language feature: very highly efficient.
minus-squareMinekPo1 [it/she]@lemmygrad.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·rok temuits efficient in terms of compiler size ! nya
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