|
2968
|
1 2003-01-21.txt:10:09:59: <dbc> That one is NYYRIKKI's brainfuck version.
|
|
|
2 2003-01-21.txt:10:22:19: <lament> hm, there doesn't seem to be a mandelbrot generator in brainfuck
|
|
|
3 2003-01-21.txt:10:38:47: <lament> besides, i have a magic brainfuck preprocessor
|
|
|
4 2003-01-21.txt:11:04:44: <lament> problematic on 8-bit brainfuck machines.
|
|
|
5 2003-01-21.txt:11:06:17: <lament> I think I just suck at brainfuck.
|
|
|
6 2003-01-21.txt:11:07:45: <dbc> Does brainfuck exist?
|
|
|
7 2003-01-21.txt:11:15:39: <dbc> (which is the 22nd google response for "brainfuck")
|
|
|
8 2003-01-21.txt:11:23:29: <fizzie> according to googlism, 'brainfuck is not sexy', 'brainfuck is the ultimate sexual experience', 'brainfuck is too obviously evil', 'brainfuck is too obviously evil' and 'brainfuck is now'.
|
|
|
9 2003-01-21.txt:11:33:37: <lament> "brainfuck is better than"
|
|
|
10 2003-01-25.txt:18:57:15: <exarkun> d'you know if the stack stack is shared between threads in concurrent funge?
|
|
|
11 2003-01-25.txt:18:57:54: <fizzie> each has its own stack.
|
|
|
12 2003-01-25.txt:18:58:07: <exarkun> yea, each has its own stack
|
|
|
13 2003-01-25.txt:18:58:16: <exarkun> but the docs don't say anything about the stack stack
|
|
|
14 2003-01-25.txt:18:58:52: <fizzie> wellll.. stack is just what's on top of the stack stack.
|
|
|
15 2003-01-25.txt:18:59:23: <fizzie> in befunge97 or 96 they had shared stacks, which sounds really, really sick.
|
|
|
16 2003-01-27.txt:22:09:28: <lament> Some guy in #forth wanted to write a Forth in Brainfuck
|
|
|
17 2003-01-27.txt:23:21:52: <lament> well if someone finds it offensive, fuck that btich!
|
|
|
18 2003-01-27.txt:23:43:24: <dbc> I don't think I can come up with a better representation offhand...here's what I'm working with: http://www.hevanet.com/cristofd/brainfuck/daniel.png
|
|
|
19 2003-01-30.txt:06:05:58: <lament> There's a guy in #forth who wants to write a forth in brainfuck.
|
|
|
20 2003-02-06.txt:19:50:00: <tav> so, besides brainfuck, what are other interesting esoteric languages?
|
|
|
21 2003-02-07.txt:05:06:00: <lament> "height in wavelengths"? What the fuck.
|
|
|
22 2003-02-13.txt:21:17:45: -!- Iceman01 changed the topic of #esoteric to: 'Brainfuck'
|
|
|
23 2003-02-13.txt:21:18:47: <Iceman01> does anybody know brainfuck?
|
|
|
24 2003-02-13.txt:21:22:58: -!- exarkun changed the topic of #esoteric to: Trefunge > Brainfuck
|
|
|
25 2003-03-15.txt:06:07:19: <lament> i've done too much stuff with brainfuck already.
|
|
|
26 2003-03-15.txt:08:33:14: <dbc> someone was also asking before about why the brainfuck golf rules prohibit both using numbers above 255, and assuming wraparound byte values, when one or the other will work in just about any implementation...
|
|
|
27 2003-03-15.txt:08:33:48: <dbc> but as you (lament) know, it's because the brainfuck golf rules are designed to require maximal portability.
|
|
|
28 2003-04-12.txt:13:33:26: <dbc> Well, it's as many 80-character lines as will fit in one K...it's twice the size of my UTM, which is the smallest Turing-complete brainfuck program so far...hm. No reason, really :)
|
|
|
29 2003-04-20.txt:01:51:43: <lament> Many people who are into Scientology don't suspect how fucked up it is, either
|
|
|
30 2003-05-07.txt:09:24:28: * SamB wonders what sexygirl153 is doing in #esoteric -- maybe she heard about brainfuck and got confused?
|
|
|
31 2003-05-17.txt:16:33:46: * t3rmin4t0r just setup a brainfuck webservice (a simple rot13) program
|
|
|
32 2003-05-21.txt:06:27:11: <dbc1> [Input a brainfuck program, then a !, then the input for the program.
|
|
|
33 2003-05-22.txt:13:54:18: <dbc> I figured out a new highly implementation-dependent brainfuck quine. It goes like this:
|
|
|
34 2003-06-19.txt:00:51:35: <dbc> Shaved another two bytes. random.b has undergone more revision than any other extant brainfuck program, I think.
|
|
|
35 2003-07-09.txt:03:25:27: <lament> Brainfuck does!
|
|
|
36 2003-07-09.txt:03:25:37: <Taaus> Then Brainfuck isn't a language.
|
|
|
37 2003-07-09.txt:03:26:54: <lament> (the brainfuck family)
|
|
|
38 2003-07-09.txt:03:29:20: <lament> anyway, any definition of programming languages which excludes brainfuck is morally wrong.
|
|
|
39 2003-07-09.txt:03:29:57: <Taaus> Not really... Brainfuck with limited memory can't execute all the programs a Turing Machine can.
|
|
|
40 2003-07-09.txt:03:30:09: <Taaus> Brainfuck _without_ limited memory is a programming language. No contest there.
|
|
|
41 2003-07-09.txt:04:09:41: <dbc> And I wouldn't broaden it too far. Stack machines are fine, but a four-function calculator isn't. Again, I'm trying to match common usage, which doesn't speak of "programming" anything very different from a computer...
|
|
|
42 2003-07-09.txt:04:11:07: <lament> Sorta like compiling Brainfuck to Ook.
|
|
|
43 2003-07-09.txt:04:13:19: <lament> In common usage, somebody says "HTML is a programming language, i learned it at school", and the response is "FUCK YOU!" *ban*
|
|
|
44 2003-07-12.txt:00:47:31: <andreou> power and shit...
|
|
|
45 2003-07-16.txt:17:27:59: <asdsa> do you really code in brainfuck ?
|
|
|
46 2003-07-16.txt:17:28:45: <asdsa> do you know anyone really coding in brainfuck
|
|
|
47 2003-07-16.txt:17:31:25: <asdsa> i did it in brainfuck ??
|
|
|
48 2003-07-16.txt:17:35:00: <asdsa> http://esoteric.sange.fi/brainfuck/bf-source/prog/triangle.bf
|
|
|
49 2003-07-25.txt:08:18:05: <lament> It's like using C# instead of Brainfuck.
|
|
|
50 2003-07-26.txt:04:25:32: <andreou> well, if i direct him to the UHH he'll start shouting at me ``what kind of the worst lamer has written that piece of trinary shit''
|
|
|
51 2003-07-30.txt:19:52:11: <lament> Also they write Brainfork instead of Brainfuck
|
|
|
52 2003-07-30.txt:20:11:35: <lament> brainfuck was renamed?!?
|
|
|
53 2003-07-30.txt:20:26:40: <Taaus> What is your opinion on purists.org renaming Brainfuck to Brainfork?
|
|
|
54 2003-07-30.txt:20:29:57: <andreou> Well, from my point of view, they can rename it to DisneyDrum too. It will still be a great Brainfucking experience, no matter how it's called.
|
|
|
55 2003-07-30.txt:20:30:27: <Taaus> What does Ook give me that Brainfuck doesn't?
|
|
|
56 2003-07-30.txt:20:31:04: <lament> which uses exclamation marks for everything, but otherwise is just brainfuck.... without loops
|
|
|
57 2003-07-30.txt:20:31:08: <Taaus> I preferred the name 'straightfuck' that someone suggested ;)
|
|
|
58 2003-07-30.txt:20:31:56: <Taaus> The Brainfuck->Brainfork one?
|
|
|
59 2003-07-30.txt:20:32:00: <lament> Taaus: so they wanted to rename the language to "fuck"
|
|
|
60 2003-07-30.txt:20:32:08: <andreou> The Brainfuck->* one.
|
|
|
61 2003-07-31.txt:18:09:14: <lament> which includes brainfuck, but brainfuck is special
|
|
|
62 2003-08-06.txt:19:06:51: <`antilove> a new brainfuck ?
|
|
|
63 2003-08-06.txt:19:20:43: <lament> but THIS is fucked up
|
|
|
64 2003-09-04.txt:02:28:14: <lament> Therefore, timbre can go fuck itself!
|
|
|
65 2003-09-04.txt:02:53:42: <lament> very shitty music, certainly.
|
|
|
66 2003-09-09.txt:01:41:17: <lament> Is doppelganger written in brainfuck?
|
|
|
67 2003-10-21.txt:00:49:56: <lament> that wouldn't be fucked up enough
|
|
|
68 2003-10-21.txt:00:50:58: <andreou> people, greet steve... steve is a neophyte brainfuck programmer who wants to extend it :)
|
|
|
69 2003-10-21.txt:00:51:41: <andreou> so we all need to make him BELIEVE that it's bad to extend brainfuck :)
|
|
|
70 2003-10-21.txt:00:51:43: <lament> wanting to extend brainfuck is a nasty disease that most people go through.
|
|
|
71 2003-10-21.txt:00:54:23: <andreou> oh, in comp.sys.hp48 there was an interesting thread in which two brainfuck compilers/interpreters crept up... i meant to summarize it and send it over to lang@ and fob
|
|
|
72 2003-10-21.txt:00:54:29: <calamari_> andreou: http://esoteric.sange.fi/brainfuck/impl/interp/calculator/casiobf.txt
|
|
|
73 2003-10-21.txt:00:55:13: <stevaras> can some1 tell me why o love brainfuck ?
|
|
|
74 2003-10-21.txt:01:00:21: <stevaras> brainfuck env under sgi environment
|
|
|
75 2003-10-21.txt:01:00:21: <stevaras> brainfuck d.kit under sgi environment
|
|
|
76 2003-10-21.txt:04:24:40: -!- lament has quit ("fuck").
|
|
|
77 2003-10-22.txt:03:31:30: <stevaras> or teach him bfuck
|
|
|
78 2003-10-22.txt:03:32:16: <andreou> lament "ante gamisou" is "fuck off"
|
|
|
79 2003-10-22.txt:03:37:23: <stevaras> or a forgotten cut dick
|
|
|
80 2003-10-23.txt:10:00:26: <dbc> Here's a question. Consider a language made of all the extensions yet proposed for brainfuck (insofar as they can be made consistent with each other), but not including the eight original brainfuck instructions. Is it Turing-complete?
|
|
|
81 2003-10-28.txt:02:22:22: <lament> this is also the home channel of the official centennial brainfuck golf contest.
|
|
|
82 2003-10-28.txt:02:23:04: <dx> how do you play golf with brainfuck
|
|
|
83 2003-11-21.txt:02:32:43: <Taaus> I'm not sure.. It doesn't have any looping constructs, as far as I can see... Although it might be possible to implement it with a stack.. Hmm.
|
|
|
84 2003-11-21.txt:02:37:34: <Taaus> Cool. I made it blow the stack with a loop.
|
|
|
85 2003-11-21.txt:02:39:07: <Taaus> @+<coord> is "push <coord> onto stack", @@<coord> is "do <coord> for each item in stack"
|
|
|
86 2003-11-21.txt:02:41:41: <Taaus> A stack operation counts as a <coord>. And { ... } is just to group more <coord>s as one <coord>.
|
|
|
87 2003-11-21.txt:02:42:42: <Taaus> Well, the <coord> popped from the stack is placed in a special variable called the "current coordinate".
|
|
|
88 2003-11-21.txt:02:43:26: <Taaus> The @+ operation doesn't affect the current coordinate, but it does push its argument onto the stack.
|
|
|
89 2003-11-21.txt:02:59:07: <Taaus> I guess you could implement a kind of truth values using empty/non-empty stacks...
|
|
|
90 2003-11-21.txt:02:59:23: <Taaus> It's possible to save stacks in variables, BTW.
|
|
|
91 2003-11-21.txt:03:24:37: <lament> is a stack just a type of coordinate? :)
|
|
|
92 2003-11-21.txt:03:41:04: <Taaus> Grr... Saving stacks in variables seems to be... Limited, somehow... It seems it has to take place directly after the stack has been initialised.
|
|
|
93 2003-12-29.txt:21:56:40: <lament> any time you need more stack for example
|
|
|
94 2003-12-29.txt:21:56:57: <lament> neither does c, if you consider the stack
|
|
|
95 2004-02-08.txt:05:01:54: <lament> brainfuck is often easy to write an interpreter for
|
|
|
96 2004-02-08.txt:05:02:25: <lament> or the universal register machine, which was used to prove turing-completeness of brainfuck itself
|
|
|
97 2004-02-08.txt:05:02:53: <Toreun> well, brainfuck is a UTM itself, essentially, isn't it?
|
|
|
98 2004-02-08.txt:05:04:29: <Toreun> well, a universal turing machine is a subset of brainfuck, isn't it?
|
|
|
99 2004-02-08.txt:05:04:44: <Toreun> because I thought that brainfuck was just meant to emulate a turing machine
|
|
|
100 2004-02-08.txt:05:08:02: <lament> Brainfuck is nothing like that.
|
|
|
101 2004-02-08.txt:05:09:29: <lament> TM is generally harder to implement in a given programming language than Brainfuck
|
|
|
102 2004-02-08.txt:05:10:13: <lament> the whole terminology is extremely fucked up.
|
|
|
103 2004-02-08.txt:05:19:02: <lament> depending on the language, either Brainfuck or SKI calculus will be easy to implement
|
|
|
104 2004-02-08.txt:05:20:55: <Toreun> it looks like brainfuck would be easier to implement because I don't really wanna think enough to implement this...
|
|
|
105 2004-02-08.txt:20:48:59: <Toreun> two dimensional, using a stack and a queue
|
|
|
106 2004-02-08.txt:20:51:24: <lament> Toreun: brainfuck is probably not the easiest way to prove turing-completeness of that
|
|
|
107 2004-02-08.txt:20:58:38: <fizzie> er, with a stack and a queue, wouldn't the "obvious" way to do that be to stack everything from the queue to the stack, and then enqueue them back in the queue? (hee, that sounds fun. stack to the stack and enqueue in a queue.)
|
|
|
108 2004-02-08.txt:21:13:14: <Toreun> at times like this, I am kinda regretting that it is this complicated... I am still not sure how I should store the instructions for brainfuck
|
|
|
109 2004-02-08.txt:21:13:49: <Toreun> I'm probably gonna end up just using source-editing, so I can have the stack for other things
|
|
|
110 2004-02-08.txt:21:14:17: <lament> perhaps writing a compiler from brainfuck to your language would be easier?
|
|
|
111 2004-02-08.txt:21:24:14: <fizzie> like that can't-remember-the-letter instruction in funge98 which pops the new delta vector from the stack.
|
|
|
112 2004-02-10.txt:23:12:09: <Toreun> my brainfuck interpreter or my esolang interpreter?
|
|
|
113 2004-02-11.txt:00:16:55: <mooz-> I made a multitasking befunge befunge interpreter, but it doesn't keep the processes' stacks separate yet, making it quite useless
|
|
|
114 2004-02-11.txt:00:18:11: <fizzie> my glfunge98 knows how to multithread with separate stacks (using the funge98 multithreading instructions) but it's otherwise ultra-mega-sucky.
|
|
|
115 2004-02-11.txt:00:27:56: <Toreun> and the void is a stack with a max size of two
|
|
|
116 2004-02-11.txt:02:25:19: <Toreun> grr! my brainfuck interp has a really strange error!
|
|
|
117 2004-02-11.txt:22:57:34: <Toreun> well, for all those interested, http://www.toreun.org/eso.zip is the interpreter for my lang, and http://www.toreun.org/brainfuck is the directory with the source that proves its turing-completeness
|
|
|
118 2004-02-12.txt:00:51:06: <Toreun> http://www.toreun.org/eso.zip that's the interpreter and http://www.toreun.org/brainfuck
|
|
|
119 2004-02-13.txt:00:37:56: <calamari_> using c I could make a loop executing g() with void f() { g(); f() }, however, eventually the stack would overflow. I wonder if there's a way to avoid that without using "if" "while", "for", etc.
|
|
|
120 2004-02-13.txt:00:55:54: <Toreun> and a sample (rather large) program is at http://www.toreun.org/brainfuck (it's the brainfuck interpreter for it)
|
|
|
121 2004-02-13.txt:01:01:59: <Toreun> I'm thinking 'quack' because it has a queue and a stack
|
|
|
122 2004-03-20.txt:10:57:00: <Infiel> this for things like malborge and brainfuck?
|
|
|
123 2004-04-16.txt:08:23:40: <dbc> Have you been following the friends-of-brainfuck list?
|
|
|
124 2004-04-16.txt:08:25:12: <dbc> Ah. Mailing list. https://ischtar.koeln.ccc.de/mailman/listinfo/friends-of-brainfuck
|
|
|
125 2004-04-16.txt:08:25:56: <lament> why have a whole list just about brainfuck?
|
|
|
126 2004-04-16.txt:08:26:23: <dbc> The commented version is at http://www.hevanet.com/cristofd/brainfuck/collatz.b
|
|
|
127 2004-04-25.txt:21:15:09: <heatsink> There seems to be a lot of brainfuck in the archives
|
|
|
128 2004-04-29.txt:03:30:51: <Toreun> I talked about it awhile back here... it's a two dimensional programming language with a stack and a queue
|
|
|
129 2004-04-29.txt:03:36:15: <Toreun> Brainfuck interpreter
|
|
|
130 2004-04-29.txt:06:08:52: <andreou> ah shit.
|
|
|
131 2004-04-30.txt:07:44:19: <lament> and "brainfork" instead of "brainfuck"
|
|
|
132 2004-04-30.txt:07:45:37: <heatsink> I saw this great mention of brainfuck in one of the class lecture notes
|
|
|
133 2004-04-30.txt:07:46:49: <lament> mostly brainfuck
|
|
|
134 2004-04-30.txt:07:47:05: <andreou> brainfuckoffkiddo
|
|
|
135 2004-04-30.txt:07:49:01: <heatsink> Well, brainfork is not actually known to be turing-complete; besides which brainfooey is not something any sane programmer would want to program in. For more info on brainfufu, look at the website (...). Of course, it's not actually called Brainflock, but we don't want to mention bad words and all that shit.
|
|
|
136 2004-04-30.txt:07:49:54: <lament> Larry Wall mentioned Brainfuck in one of his lectures on parrot.
|
|
|
137 2004-04-30.txt:07:50:07: <lament> There was a long list of languages on the slide, and the last was "Brainfuck"
|
|
|
138 2004-04-30.txt:07:50:45: <lament> "And I can't quite make out that last one... And even if I could, i wouldn't say it. Because there're kids present, and I wouldn't want to fuck with their brains"
|
|
|
139 2004-04-30.txt:08:34:23: <lament> holy shit
|
|
|
140 2004-05-01.txt:04:05:28: <andreou> shit, yeah.
|
|
|
141 2004-05-01.txt:08:51:27: <andreou> it's brainfuck with a few candy
|
|
|
142 2004-05-01.txt:08:52:31: <lament> Also, brainfuck has better syntax.
|
|
|
143 2004-05-01.txt:08:52:51: <lament> Brainfuck's syntax isn't obfuscated
|
|
|
144 2004-05-01.txt:08:53:31: <lament> But in ook, only syntax is needlessly obfuscated relative to Brainfuck
|
|
|
145 2004-05-04.txt:00:50:43: <andreou> by the way, the wikied code is stacked on my todo que (as #1), since i have to learn latex right now, i'll restart work on it tomorrow or the day after.
|
|
|
146 2004-05-04.txt:00:54:43: <Toreun> I know! if you're using that argument, let's make the site in Brainfuck!
|
|
|
147 2004-05-04.txt:00:55:16: <Toreun> (I did see a webserver somewhere that had a brainfuck mod)
|
|
|
148 2004-05-04.txt:01:12:34: <Toreun> yeah, brainfuck
|
|
|
149 2004-05-04.txt:03:59:03: <heatsink> I like the brainfuck background, though
|
|
|
150 2004-05-15.txt:08:25:51: <mtve> btw, brainfuck is currently perlgolfed at http://kernelpanic.pl/perlgolf-view.mx?id=34
|
|
|
151 2004-05-25.txt:04:38:42: <Toreun> freakabcd: don't confuse programming brainfuck for mind-reading
|
|
|
152 2004-05-25.txt:04:41:07: <lament> And to program in Brainfuck, you have to be a mindwriter.
|
|
|
153 2004-05-27.txt:16:00:32: <fizzie> oh, and between '93 and '98 there was that funky funge with multithreading but a shared stack between all threads. (can't remember if it was '96 or '97)
|
|
|
154 2004-05-27.txt:16:06:04: <fizzie> they just push the corresponding number to stack.
|
|
|
155 2004-05-27.txt:16:06:30: <fizzie> there are no variables, just the stack. oh, and you can write/read to/from the playfield.
|
|
|
156 2004-05-27.txt:16:06:48: <fizzie> oh, right, funge98 also includes the "stack stack"
|
|
|
157 2004-05-27.txt:16:07:05: <fizzie> where instead of a single stack you actually have a stack of stacks, and you can manipulate those.
|
|
|
158 2004-05-27.txt:16:08:18: <fizzie> (if you're not familiar with forth, it just reaches into the stack and pulls out a number from an arbitrary depth.)
|
|
|
159 2004-05-27.txt:16:13:24: <fizzie> oh, and another difference: '93 had a defined 8-bit playfield and 32-bit stack. in funge98 the actual amount of bits is implementation-defined, but stack cells and playfield cells will be the same size.
|
|
|
160 2004-05-27.txt:16:14:27: <fizzie> but you can put anything from the stack to the playfield without having to worry about it being too big.
|
|
|
161 2004-05-27.txt:16:15:51: <Keymaker> it isn't pretty useful to have 32-bit stack and 8-bit playfield in 93'?
|
|
|
162 2004-05-27.txt:16:17:16: <fizzie> sorta-makes sense. the playfield is "text", composed of eight-bit octets, and the stack isn't 8-bit to allow you to calculate with larger numbers.
|
|
|
163 2004-05-27.txt:20:13:26: <Keymaker> i wonder if it's some brainfuck program that did those fractals?
|
|
|
164 2004-05-27.txt:23:03:11: <lament> oh, fuck logic then :)
|
|
|
165 2004-05-28.txt:20:51:07: <calamari_> also, I'm not sure how big a stack I'll need
|
|
|
166 2004-05-28.txt:22:05:37: <lament> is there only one optimizing brainfuck compiler?
|
|
|
167 2004-05-30.txt:20:04:38: <Keymaker> that'll have my (lame) brainfuck codes
|
|
|
168 2004-05-31.txt:21:59:52: <fizzie> book's by philip k. dick, who has written lots of excellent books, imho. not about robots though.
|
|
|
169 2004-06-04.txt:16:34:16: <Keymaker> hmmm, there's some brainfuck archive on that site *drool*
|
|
|
170 2004-06-04.txt:16:41:54: <Keymaker> oh wow! how this: http://esoteric.sange.fi/brainfuck/bf-source/prog/PI16.BF can be even possible? *confused*
|
|
|
171 2004-06-09.txt:22:44:21: <lament> Why is brainfuck so damn cool.
|
|
|
172 2004-06-09.txt:22:48:15: <lament> What brainfuck needs is a better macro system.
|
|
|
173 2004-06-09.txt:22:49:56: <lament> Are you subscribed to friends-of-brainfuck?
|
|
|
174 2004-06-09.txt:22:58:59: <deltab> 215725Z #esp <supybot> Title: BrainFuck.Net (at www.ecs.soton.ac.uk)
|
|
|
175 2004-06-09.txt:22:58:59: <deltab> 215733Z #esp <sbp> # Does BrainFuck.Net use the controversial Microsoft Passport system for authentication?
|
|
|
176 2004-06-09.txt:22:58:59: <deltab> 215733Z #esp <sbp> No. The Brainfuck language has only 8 commands, and none of them are related to authentica
|
|
|
177 2004-06-10.txt:20:16:30: <lament> it's cool because at least Brainfuck does prescribe limited memory.
|
|
|
178 2004-06-10.txt:20:17:51: <lament> it would also require a fucking big computer
|
|
|
179 2004-06-10.txt:20:21:26: <lament> for brainfuck
|
|
|
180 2004-06-11.txt:00:27:16: <lament> Clearly people don't bother about optimizing their Brainfuck code at all!
|
|
|
181 2004-06-11.txt:04:17:32: <lament> basic->brainfuck
|
|
|
182 2004-06-11.txt:18:04:27: <lament> ideally, the optimizer should be written in brainfuck.
|
|
|
183 2004-06-11.txt:19:00:44: <lament> but really, it should be written in Brainfuck.
|
|
|
184 2004-06-11.txt:20:25:41: <lament> fuck.
|
|
|
185 2004-06-11.txt:20:34:06: <lament> FUCK
|
|
|
186 2004-06-11.txt:22:10:37: <lament> it's a brainfuck, not befunge, optimizer
|
|
|
187 2004-06-11.txt:22:22:15: <lament> wib.b (the brainfuck->c compiler) is 6288 instructions.
|
|
|
188 2004-06-12.txt:19:42:41: <lament> there's gotta be some content-inference scheme for brainfuck.
|
|
|
189 2004-06-12.txt:19:44:06: <lament> (not brainfuck->brainfuck optimizations, but brainfuck->C)
|
|
|
190 2004-06-15.txt:10:05:56: <calamari_> for those wondering.. I have bfasm working with simple programs. Next I need to do arrays, then the stack, and finally put in text -> memory storage
|
|
|
191 2004-06-20.txt:18:11:28: <calamari_> I haven't finished implementing the STK command (to set the stack size).. also need to understand/use a few of dbc's compare and divide/mod routines
|
|
|
192 2004-06-20.txt:18:12:12: <calamari_> stack (accessible via push & pop only)
|
|
|
193 2004-06-20.txt:18:15:36: <fizzie> sounds that any non-trivial C programs will compile to rather big blobs of brainfuck.
|
|
|
194 2004-06-24.txt:06:58:28: <lament> are you using an optimizing brainfuck compile?
|
|
|
195 2004-06-28.txt:02:46:29: <Toreun> I just wrote a brainfuck interpreter for it
|
|
|
196 2004-06-28.txt:02:47:22: <Toreun> see, I wrote my interpreter in PHP, an interpreted language. so I had my brainfuck interpreter being interpreted by my language interpreter being interpreted by a php interpreter being interpreted by the processor
|
|
|
197 2004-06-28.txt:02:47:30: <WildHalcyon_> One option is just to push the function name onto the stack and have an 'execute' command
|
|
|
198 2004-06-28.txt:04:04:01: <Toreun> it has a stack and a queue
|
|
|
199 2004-06-28.txt:04:09:11: <WildHalcyon> so there's a stack and a queue?
|
|
|
200 2004-06-28.txt:04:11:39: <Toreun> there's my interpreter, and my brainfuck interpreter
|
|
|
201 2004-06-29.txt:18:03:00: <Toreun> just wondering, did anyone ever make brainfuck-native hardware? I read something about it awhile, and I'm just wondering if anything happened with it
|
|
|
202 2004-07-02.txt:06:38:15: <heatsink> Can a single datum (a cell, the stack contents, etc.) be arbitrarily big? Because then you could pack the lambda function into a single value, and then unpack it in-place... In fact, I've been wanting to do an esolang sort of like that
|
|
|
203 2004-07-02.txt:06:39:20: <WildHalcyon> Stack contents possibly, but an actual cell is limited to a 8-bit value
|
|
|
204 2004-07-05.txt:02:40:42: <lament> does linux run in brainfuck yet?
|
|
|
205 2004-07-06.txt:07:12:00: <WildHalcyon> like regular lambda functions in false - they're pushed onto the stack and executed like normal
|
|
|
206 2004-07-08.txt:17:04:39: <mtve> there was small tcpip stack in php and it shouldn't be more than 64k of bf-asm code i think.
|
|
|
207 2004-07-08.txt:17:05:40: <mtve> http://www.sics.se/~adam/phpstack/
|
|
|
208 2004-07-08.txt:17:10:52: <fizzie> there's all kinds of stuff like explicit congestion notification (RFC2884), syncookies, window scaling (RFC1323), Nagle's algorithm and loads of others if you want a funky tcp/ip stack.
|
|
|
209 2004-07-10.txt:04:58:56: <heatsink> brainfuck compiler collectoin?
|
|
|
210 2004-07-12.txt:21:02:01: <calamari_> is there an easy way to deal with that (I'm using something similar to recursive descent, using a stack rather than recursive calls)
|
|
|
211 2004-07-17.txt:22:13:29: <Lord_AnthraX> fuck the 8-ball
|
|
|
212 2004-08-05.txt:04:41:43: <JoeyP> WHAT THE FUCK REALTIME LOGGIN OMG LOL
|
|
|
213 2004-08-05.txt:04:46:05: <lament> What the fuck is esper.net?
|
|
|
214 2004-08-05.txt:04:49:41: <lament> this guy, he learned brainfuck, then his wife left him.
|
|
|
215 2004-08-05.txt:04:49:58: <lament> this other guy, he wrote a brainfuck interpreter, and then got raped by a bunch of thugs.
|
|
|
216 2004-08-05.txt:04:50:05: <LinkMasterSab> Shit*
|
|
|
217 2004-08-05.txt:04:50:10: <LinkMasterSab> I just wrote a brainfuck interpreter
|
|
|
218 2004-08-05.txt:04:50:27: <lament> another guy, he wrote a brainfuck compiler, and terrorists tortured him for a week before killing him
|
|
|
219 2004-08-05.txt:04:50:42: <lament> and i'd really rather not say what happened to the guy who invented brainfuck.
|
|
|
220 2004-08-05.txt:04:50:53: <LinkMasterSab> Brainfucked?
|
|
|
221 2004-08-05.txt:04:54:38: <LinkMasterSab> Anyone want my Brainfuck interpreter?
|
|
|
222 2004-08-05.txt:04:54:56: <lament> labeled "brainfuck interpreters in Python"
|
|
|
223 2004-08-05.txt:04:56:05: <JoeyP> Why make more brainfuck interpreters than needed?
|
|
|
224 2004-08-05.txt:04:56:25: <LinkMasterSab> Doublefuck is useless.
|
|
|
225 2004-08-05.txt:04:56:39: <LinkMasterSab> The two stacks don't interact.
|
|
|
226 2004-08-05.txt:04:57:10: <JoeyP> A heterosexual brainfuck interpreter?
|
|
|
227 2004-08-05.txt:04:57:29: <Taaus> That would be... Straightfuck.
|
|
|
228 2004-08-05.txt:04:57:41: <JoeyP> Tittiefuck
|
|
|
229 2004-08-05.txt:04:57:53: <lament> Cheesefuck (stay on topic dammit!)
|
|
|
230 2004-08-05.txt:04:58:02: <LinkMasterSab> Cheddarfuck :o
|
|
|
231 2004-08-05.txt:04:58:47: <JoeyP> It's superiour, since it already had the cheesefuck.
|
|
|
232 2004-08-05.txt:05:01:25: <JoeyP> shitty++
|
|
|
233 2004-08-05.txt:15:00:38: <JoeyP> I'll take that as a "NO BITCH, NOW FUCK OFF YOU FUCKING CUNT"
|
|
|
234 2004-08-12.txt:01:26:05: <JoeyP> oh shit
|
|
|
235 2004-08-12.txt:01:26:22: <JoeyP> i know, just a stack
|
|
|
236 2004-08-12.txt:01:26:36: <LinkMasterSab> Stacks are coo <23
|
|
|
237 2004-08-12.txt:01:27:41: <LinkMasterSab> pop(0) unless the callback stack isn't empty.
|
|
|
238 2004-08-12.txt:01:29:58: <LinkMasterSab> I tried to write a Brainfuck optimizer, didn't work too well.
|
|
|
239 2004-08-12.txt:01:30:01: <JoeyP> it will be shitty though
|
|
|
240 2004-08-12.txt:01:30:27: <LinkMasterSab> Optimizing with large numbers causes it to use stacks you might not want it to :/
|
|
|
241 2004-08-12.txt:01:30:51: <LinkMasterSab> Plus I couldn't figure out how the fuck to make it work with the stacks to being with.
|
|
|
242 2004-08-12.txt:01:39:26: <JoeyP> this is shitty
|
|
|
243 2004-09-13.txt:11:31:55: <ZeroOne> oh. ok. :/ here's my brainfuck-interpreter anyway: http://koti.mbnet.fi/~villes/php/bf.php (nested loops still not implemented).
|
|
|
244 2004-09-14.txt:21:27:53: <ZeroOne> something has to be thought for orphan letters which probably will appear. maybe if a letter set doesn't form an instruction, it could be pushed to stack
|
|
|
245 2004-09-14.txt:21:36:51: <fizzie> was going to write a befunge variant with "define", "call" and "return" instructions. 'define' would take an (x,y) pair that defines the start of an function and a small integer 'n' which would be the "name", 'call' would pop n and go to the function, but push the return address to stack, and 'return' would pop the return address off the stack and go back.
|
|
|
246 2004-09-14.txt:21:37:10: <fizzie> not sure if I wanted a separate "execution stack" or to use the normal stack for it.
|
|
|
247 2004-09-14.txt:21:38:03: <lindi-> separate stack would be too easy
|
|
|
248 2004-09-14.txt:21:38:19: <fizzie> yes, but if I use the normal stack then delivering parameters to functions will be hard.
|
|
|
249 2004-09-17.txt:18:49:33: <Keymaker> ZeroOne: interesting php brainfuck interpreter coming up there
|
|
|
250 2004-09-18.txt:01:00:27: <lament> of course there already exists a php brainfuck interpreter
|
|
|
251 2004-09-22.txt:19:18:29: <Keymaker> ZeroOne: in my previous message i had a small brainfuck code ',[[.>]<]'
|
|
|
252 2004-10-05.txt:22:23:01: <ZeroOne> Hipo: like Brainfuck, Befunge, Whitespace, INTERCAL, Unlambda, ...
|
|
|
253 2004-10-05.txt:22:23:30: <Hipo> A bit brainfuck.
|
|
|
254 2004-10-31.txt:18:57:53: <Keymaker> one thing in a brainfuck program i was writing..
|
|
|
255 2004-11-07.txt:03:34:38: <heatsink> A while ago, someone wrote a C -> brainfuck compiler
|
|
|
256 2004-11-07.txt:03:35:33: <slava> i'm working on stack effect inference for postfix languages
|
|
|
257 2004-11-07.txt:03:36:21: <slava> eg, the stack effect of 2 2 + is [ 0 | 1 ] because it takes no values from the stack, but leaves one
|
|
|
258 2004-11-07.txt:03:36:38: <slava> the stack effect of dup * is [ 1 | 1 ], because it takes one value, duplicates it, multiplies the two duplicates, to yield one value
|
|
|
259 2004-11-07.txt:03:37:07: <heatsink> Doesn't 2 2 + take two values from the stack and then add one?
|
|
|
260 2004-11-07.txt:03:37:48: <heatsink> so what is the stack effect of printf?
|
|
|
261 2004-11-07.txt:03:39:17: <slava> so the stack effect of 2 2 + is [ 0 | 1 ] * [ 0 | 1 ] * [ 2 | 1 ]
|
|
|
262 2004-11-07.txt:03:40:27: <jDoctor> it should lead to computer-generated stack effects, right?
|
|
|
263 2004-11-07.txt:03:41:29: <heatsink> do both branches of an if-then-else have to have the same stack effect to be legal?
|
|
|
264 2004-11-07.txt:03:42:44: <slava> since after the ifte, the stack height is constant, sonce the two branches are balanced
|
|
|
265 2004-11-07.txt:03:43:54: <slava> this is valid, since i have proofs that balanced sets of stack effects behave just like the maximimal element under pairwise composition
|
|
|
266 2004-11-07.txt:03:44:26: <slava> words that take variable numbers of arguments off the stack?
|
|
|
267 2004-11-07.txt:03:51:40: <slava> yes, but I don't infer stack effects of code involving them.
|
|
|
268 2004-12-01.txt:17:38:03: <Keymaker> c-code to brainfuck?
|
|
|
269 2004-12-06.txt:22:27:01: <ZeroOne> hey, I implemented nested loops to my online PHP-Brainfuck Interpreter: http://koti.mbnet.fi/villes/php/bf.php
|
|
|
270 2004-12-06.txt:22:27:17: <ZeroOne> a brainfuck interpreted made with php, that is
|
|
|
271 2004-12-10.txt:18:03:23: <Keymaker> i made a program in brainfuck
|
|
|
272 2004-12-23.txt:08:41:11: <nooga> i know only brainfuck
|
|
|
273 2004-12-24.txt:22:04:19: <lament> Maybe you should speak of brainfuck.
|
|
|
274 2004-12-26.txt:03:38:42: <lament> befunge and brainfuck are both great.
|
|
|
275 2004-12-26.txt:12:37:42: <Keymaker> yeah. i just tought it'd be nice to know the 'official', i'd like to make on in brainfuck
|
|
|
276 2004-12-26.txt:12:52:04: <nooga_> code space, output window and stack listener :)
|
|
|
277 2004-12-26.txt:13:55:36: <nooga_> because i dont pop from the stack when | or _ are noticed
|
|
|
278 2004-12-26.txt:14:00:37: <ZeroOne> erm, no. I haven't done that much befunge. I wrote a brainfuck interpreter in PHP, though.
|
|
|
279 2004-12-26.txt:14:07:10: <nooga_> but im polluted with befunge and brainfuck
|
|
|
280 2004-12-26.txt:14:11:29: <nooga_> it would be funny to build electronic brainfuck
|
|
|
281 2004-12-26.txt:14:15:27: <nooga_> i will make brainfuck processor
|
|
|
282 2004-12-26.txt:21:54:20: <lament> basically, look at Brainfuck, Befunge, Lazy K
|
|
|
283 2004-12-26.txt:22:01:02: <nooga> 5{--} = +++++ in brainfuck; 2{5{--}.} = +++++.+++++.
|
|
|
284 2004-12-26.txt:22:05:38: <lament> anything with a brainfuck-like memory model is likely to be useless
|
|
|
285 2004-12-26.txt:22:35:15: <nooga> brainfuck based
|
|
|
286 2004-12-26.txt:23:01:48: <nooga> wanna see my useless version of brainfuck? :P
|
|
|
287 2004-12-26.txt:23:02:56: <nooga> +++>++++++++++++<[>.<-] in brainfuck is equal to:
|
|
|
288 2004-12-26.txt:23:14:58: <Keymaker> here's sample of one (similar to brainfuck) i've been planning .;;;; .:; :; .;;;; ,:; ,.; ,.:;
|
|
|
289 2004-12-26.txt:23:16:15: <Keymaker> basically, this is brainfuck, but with some extra instructions and instructions represented non-easier way
|
|
|
290 2004-12-27.txt:18:41:38: <Keymaker> that brainfuck quine
|
|
|
291 2004-12-27.txt:18:54:27: <ZeroOne> like www.keymakersbrainfuck.tk or keymakerbf.cjb.net or something like that
|
|
|
292 2004-12-27.txt:18:56:31: <Keymaker> or not necessarily entirely for brainfuck, but for some esoteric programming language projects
|
|
|
293 2004-12-27.txt:19:02:16: <ZeroOne> just for the fun of it, I just reserved the address http://brainfuck.tk/ :)
|
|
|
294 2004-12-28.txt:19:16:40: <mtve> http://puzzlet.org/puzzlet/Funge~PuzzletChung/Brainfuck
|
|
|
295 2005-01-15.txt:23:43:59: <Keymaker> that picture that has inside it some brainfuck stuff seems interesting.. anyways; good night everyone, i'll go to sleep. :)
|
|
|
296 2005-01-16.txt:12:07:01: <mtve> _ operator pops the stack
|
|
|
297 2005-01-16.txt:12:12:03: <Keymaker> this seems to be pretty good language :) (though, can't beat brainfuck, naturally!)
|
|
|
298 2005-01-16.txt:12:15:59: <Keymaker> will the first in stack be 0 or the one that is followed by "
|
|
|
299 2005-01-16.txt:12:16:19: <Keymaker> "hi" would there be on stack 0 h i
|
|
|
300 2005-01-16.txt:12:17:34: <mtve> and most of implementations pop zero from empty stack.
|
|
|
301 [too many lines; stopping]
|
