• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      13
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        65 months ago

        For demonstrating to CS freshmen that Turing Completeness isn’t that remarkable of a language feature: very highly efficient.

    • MeanEYE
      link
      fedilink
      65 months ago

      Can be compressed very efficiently. I do dread the thought of writing a driver in brainfuck.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Can be compressed very efficiently.

        Which basically means: “You have to write more code than actually needed”. It’s more a con than a pro in my eyes.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        25 months ago

        Hot take: As a VM with only eight instructions, it’s very easy to code and securely sandbox. Maybe BF has utility as a compilation target?

        • MeanEYE
          link
          fedilink
          55 months ago

          Hardware is complex and mysterious enough without added complexity of an esoteric language.