2 ms·
Yes, we would require a new model, as new IO primitves would be required. Might I suggest ^v/.! as the instructions for writing up, down, left, right and last I
by qwertyuiop924 10y ago
Yes, we would require a new model, as new IO primitves would be required. Might I suggest ^v/.! as the instructions for writing up, down, left, right and last IO ports, respectively? For reading, we could use &V\,*$ for up, down, left, right, any and last respectively.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoWe'll take whatever you suggest. So long as we have a DSL for writing our demo programs that buyers can understand and approve of before programmers see the actual primitives. ;)
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoWell, yes. With that, we can inplement most of the TIS-100 instruction set fairly easily. We may have to exclude JRO, the NIL psudoport, and restrict the use of labels, but it would be fairly complete. Better yet, these restrictions are totally undocumented, so programmers will have to either work with the primitives or cross their fingers that their code will compile each day.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago"these restrictions are totally undocumented, so programmers will have to either work with the primitives or cross their fingers that their code will compile each day." That's a great expansion it being undocumented. Worked wonders for Microsoft's strategy of lock-in. We're going to have to make sure the CPU and platform's API's are considered copywritten on top of that so they might not be... legally allowed... to clone or port it without paying us. We could collect royalties on a BrainFuck CPU for our lifetime plus an arbitrary number of years decided by Congress reps collecting bribes.
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoFrom this discussion, I conclude that we are both way too good at being evil.