Maven (famous) to Programmer [email protected] • 11 months agoSTOP WRITING Cimagemessage-square147arrow-up1843arrow-down158
arrow-up1785arrow-down1imageSTOP WRITING CMaven (famous) to Programmer [email protected] • 11 months agomessage-square147
minus-square@dejected_warp_corelink13•edit-211 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-square@[email protected]linkfedilink6•11 months agoFor demonstrating to CS freshmen that Turing Completeness isn’t that remarkable of a language feature: very highly 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.