On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:43:54 +0100 Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit "Tim Olsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > A programming language with the minimum number of instructions > > necessary to be turing-complete and have I/O may be more than a toy > > for some people. > > Perhaps. But (1) brainfuck isn't that; it has twice as many basic > instructions as combinatory lambda calculus, and (2) the use of toy > languages generally do not depend on having a compiler for them. BrainFuck is not just a proof-of-concept or a toy language. You can write actual programs using it. For example, you could replace `cat' with ",[.,]" in BrainFuck: wouldn't this be useful in a boot floppy? O_o Seriously, there is even a complete textual adventure written in BrainFuck: http://jonripley.com/i-fiction/games/LostKingdomBF.html Isn't this real programming? -- KiyuKo <eof AT kiyuko DOT org> "Like Russian Rulette with six bullets loaded"
pgpTYCXUTWnlk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
