Category talk:Low-level
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I don't think Brainfuck or its derivatives should be in this category at all. 'Low-level' is an ill-defined concept when it comes to esolangs to start with, but Brainfuck doesn't even come close to defining a VM and its only form of control flow is a structured loop. Phantom Hoover (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- The whole "big unstructured tape where you store everything and have a pointer" concept is very low-level. The fact that loops are structured is a fairly good point, but I think that brainfuck programming is distinctly mechanical in a way; you are constantly juggling memory, caring about representations, etc. Perhaps we should just remove the low and high level categories; the ambiguity is bad enough with conventional imperative languages, but when we have wilfully obscure structures of various paradigms... ehird (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well exactly, the page as it stands is hopelessly vague. I think I'll revise my position to "this category should be redefined to only include languages which explicitly operate in a VM". Phantom Hoover (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- IIRC the original BF spec defines
[and]in terms of jumps. Add a tape of bytes and a pointer, and that counts as a VM to me. ehird (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)- Mueller's readme just refers to [ and ] as start and end loop, respectively. It does refer to the pointer, but makes no mention of what it points to (beyond that it can be interpreted as an ASCII code). Phantom Hoover (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- IIRC the original BF spec defines
- Well exactly, the page as it stands is hopelessly vague. I think I'll revise my position to "this category should be redefined to only include languages which explicitly operate in a VM". Phantom Hoover (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Y so slow?
How to add a new language to this category? --(this comment by 37.57.17.108 at 12:16, 2 August 2013 UTC; please sign your comments with ~~~~)