Maven (famous)@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.ml · 5 months agoSTOP WRITING Clemmy.worldimagemessage-square156fedilinkarrow-up1844
arrow-up1844imageSTOP WRITING Clemmy.worldMaven (famous)@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.ml · 5 months agomessage-square156fedilink
minus-squaredejected_warp_core@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up13·edit-25 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-up6·5 months agoFor demonstrating to CS freshmen that Turing Completeness isn’t that remarkable of a language feature: very highly efficient.
minus-squareMinekPo1 [She/Her]@lemmygrad.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·5 months agoits 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