Talk:MGIFOS

This is very much like Unary but with asterisks instead of zeros and the command numbering is different (4 bits for a command, instead of 3 bits for a command) --Zzo38 05:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's depressing - I hadn't seen that. I had also come to the same conclusion about command numbering, but had decided I wouldn't change it. However, I suppose it has the same relationship as Orthogonal does to Befunge. --(this comment by Marz at 10:01, 25 August 2007 UTC; please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I wonder how long is the shortest possible implementation of a Turing-complete language in MGIFOS. I was just thinking maybe such a thing could be used to get around memory/disk space limitations by delegating to another language. Of course, any of the BF self-interpreters could be trivially translated into MGIFOS, but can anyone do better? :) — Smjg (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What if they were numbered with base-9 1-8 instead? Would that make it any more efficient?

Let's see:

"><" ->19 = Less efficient by <0.03 orders of magnitude
"+[]" ->378_9=314=More efficient by ~0.45 orders of magnitude
",[.,]" -> 67568_9=44936 =More efficient by ~0.97 orders of magnitude

In short, it would be much less impractical, but still terribly impractical. SuperJedi224 (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)