Brainfunked, for some reason...

Hey guys, shameless plug here:

I recently responded to a post on writing a program to count to ten, and I implemented it in brain****, here it is.

The weird thing is, after that I had an unavoidable itch to know more about it and... I ended up coding my own interpreter and compiler :D
WHY?! I can almost hear you asking. idk

For anyone interested, here's the page on github.

EDIT: Oh shoot, did I post this in the wrong sub-forum? Feel free to change it if I did, this may have to go to "Projects and Job Requirement".

I had no idea someone would love brain**** so much :P

So many extensions/variants to implement, so little time! :D

It's been a week since I started it, and I'm already seeing a sort-of "power-creep". It's starting to become a large project, far larger than I thought it'd be!

You could use BF as the intermediate representation for a whole compiler platform, a la LLVM. Or develop a series of processors that execute BF directly. Instead of RISC or CISC, it would me MISC - Minimalist Instruction Set Computing. :)

Ok, I know you're joking, but I need to point out to myself that that'd be considered "going too freakin' far!".

OMG, I'm neck-deep into this, there's no turning back now! :rolleyes:

Imagine a BF-based CPU with a thousand cores, running at 4GHz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GReaper

Hey guys, shameless plug here:

I recently responded to a post on writing a program to count to ten, and I implemented it in brain****, here it is

---

On that thread, you were too late to the BF party https://cboard.cprogramming.com/gene...ml#post1260432
Congrats on your interpreter. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elkvis

Imagine a BF-based CPU with a thousand cores, running at 4GHz.

---

Each core would run its own BF code and either have its own tape or all of them would share a single tape... Oh, the possibilities!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stevesmithx

On that thread, you were too late to the BF party https://cboard.cprogramming.com/gene...ml#post1260432
Congrats on your interpreter.

---

Oh, I didn't see that! I just did a thread-wide search for "brain" and it didn't come up, so I thought I was the first.
Thanks! ( compiler too :p )

Brain........ is so gross. Why not program in the lambda calculus instead? It's much more readable. :p

Plus, you can even implement Peano numerics... so efficient! lol

Oh, and its super-parallizable (is that a word?)

EDIT: No, that's not a word. But scalable is!

Lambda calculus?... I'm afraid to even look that up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GReaper

Lambda calculus?... I'm afraid to even look that up!

---

LOL. It's not so bad. Better than Brain........!

I was joking about it being more readable... they are both equally unreadable!

From my understanding, Brain........ is a straighforward implementation of a Turing machine. Some computer science guys (starting with Haskell, I believe) developed an alternate semantics of general computing, which is entirely based on functions, that was proved to be equivalent to Turing machine. Thus, the lambda calculus is equivalent to Brain......... Actually, ALL programming languages (at least the "Turing complete" ones) are equivalent to Brain......... However, the main difference is that the lambda calculus has no concept of "state", whereas the Turing machine is entirely based on state.