Maven (famous)@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.ml · 1 年前STOP WRITING Clemmy.worldimagemessage-square154fedilinkarrow-up1847arrow-down160
arrow-up1787arrow-down1imageSTOP WRITING Clemmy.worldMaven (famous)@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@lemmy.ml · 1 年前message-square154fedilink
minus-squaredejected_warp_core@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up13·edit-21 年前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.
minus-squarefrezik@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up6·1 年前For demonstrating to CS freshmen that Turing Completeness isn’t that remarkable of a language feature: very highly efficient.
minus-squareMinekPo1 [it/she]@lemmygrad.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 年前its 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