Category talk:Brainfuck derivatives

I made this mainly to test the Category functionality. But I think we should attempt to have a significant set of categories to describe the languages. Things like imperative, functional, two-dimensional, multi-dimensional, turing-complete, object-oriented, turing tarpits etc... --Rune 13:49, 27 May 2005 (GMT)

I don't think this is a good category choice. Most Brainfuck derivatives are either totally uninteresting (Ook! and COW) and shouldn't be here, or are sufficiently original that they don't deserve to be called derivative (SNUSP). Let's wait until we have more content and then see what categories the languages tend to fit into. Graue 21:10, 27 May 2005 (GMT)

I'm not sure I agree that it shouldn't be a category, but it's not that important to me. However, I strongly disagree that Ook! and COW doesn't deserve to be here (though I agree they are not very interesting, except as jokes). I think we should aim to be very inclusive. They could be categorized as joke languages, together with HQ9+ and BitXtreme.--Rune 22:34, 27 May 2005 (GMT)

I think the point is that categories don't have to be disjoint sets. Interesting variants can be listed here and in their own place where they get more attention. From that point of view, I think that this category is much needed. Adding in the list a very short description of each stating how it's different to BF could help decide which of these are more interesting. For example: "FuckFuck substitutes BF commands with impolite words" or the like. - pgimeno 23:47, 27 May 2005 (GMT)

Yes. Categories should not be disjoint sets. IMHO each language should belong to a set of categories that in some way describes the language. That was what I was trying to say in my first post.

Also, I didn't mean Brainfuck derivatives as a negative categorization, but if that is how it is percieved, then it should be renamed. --Rune 22:05, 2 Jun 2005 (GMT)

How about a "list of joke languages" with brief descriptions of each, rather than Ook!, COW, HQ9+ etc. getting their own pages? Info is good, but people should be able to click on "random page" or select a language they haven't heard of in the list, and not be disappointed all too often.

I still disagree with the placement of SNUSP in this category. SNUSP is a PATH derivative, and PATH is inspired by Brainfuck and Befunge. Doesn't hurt to give Spoon, Brainfork, and Smallfuck a place, though. Graue 00:27, 28 May 2005 (GMT)

Well, I don't really know much about SNUSP. The reason I put it in that category is this quote from the SNUSP article: Core SNUSP is essentially Brainfuck with a two-dimensional control flow--Rune 02:17, 28 May 2005 (GMT)

Although technically SNUSP came after PATH, PATH leaned more toward Befunge with all of the <>^v conditionals. SNUSP is about as minimal and BF-like as you can get while retaining a 2D code space. It even went back towards BF by changing the memory pointer operators to BF's <> instead of PATH's {}. SNUSP is definitely a BF derivative. --IanO (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Information from Wikipedia

I just removed this information from the Wikipedia article on Brainfuck. Please create articles in this category or otherwise integrate this information into this wiki if you like. -- Benjamin Mako Hill (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that the Esolang wiki's license is not compatible with Wikipedia's GFDL, so moving content here must not be done. --Ørjan 12:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (posted to the Wikipedia user as well).

(Copyright violation removed. The information is still publically available in the history of the relevant Wikipedia page: [1].). --ais523 12:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)