User:Eekee

I'm not the world's biggest fan of esoteric languages, but I love the feeling of getting a program working while at the same time having difficulty with complexity. Befunge-93 appeals with its the limited scope and 2D nature, you can just see program flow. Taking it up as an alternative to the mobile gaming I've been wasting my time on lately, I find Befunge-93 is a good game; perhaps a little too addictive! ;)

I'm working on a Befunge-93 interpreter in just 2KB of Forth source code -- 2K Befunge. :) It uses a 1KB Forth block for its program space, restricting it to 64x16 or 32x32 characters depending on the host Forth. I hope to get it working in both Gforth and Hforth so it'll work unmodified on devices from an original IBM PC to the latest smartphones and tablets. ;) HForth also has a Z80 port, though I think it's meant to be burned into ROM rather than loaded on, say, a Sinclair Spectrum, and thus may lack block support. Blocks are disk allocation units.

Hforth doesn't have a 6502 port. I can't leave my favourite old processor out in the cold Befungeless world, (LOL) so I may see if this old ANSI Forth for the Atari 800 will work. However, back in the 80s, it was normal to separate 1KB screens for source code from disc sector sized blocks; just 128 bytes on the 800. Collecting 8 blocks together would take the interpreter over 2KB. There may be a screen editor word it could call.

I have ideas for my own 2D language, but it won't be an esolang. It'll be "too normal," even more so than Funge-98. I don't know if I'll ever make it. I had ideas for an OS, a bootable Funge, until I thought about the work involved and realised that FungeOS would, in fact, joss the fun. ;) The language idea came out of the extensions and generalisations Funge would need to be an OS, together with the simplifications to the core language such generalisations would allow.

I don't like Funge-98 because commands are described using jargon which is both another thing to learn and another layer of complexity. Using the word "reflect" at least makes sense, covering in 1 word the different behaviour in 1- or multiple-dimension funges, but I'm not interested in 1D esolangs, so why should I bother? But other jargon serves to thoroughly obscure all meaning unless you've first memorised a bunch of word definitions specific to Funge-98. My brain can't memorise all that in any reasonable, appropriate time frame, so some of the most interesting Funge-98 commands remain to me a foggy mess. To be fair, I've only looked at esolang's page and no other Funge-98 resources. A case might be made for improving the page, but I'm too sleepy.

i is a teeny bit sad because my introduction got lost in archiving, but only a teeny bit. all i have is this from Esolang:Introduce_yourself history: 19:39, 13 February 2021 Eekee talk contribs 69,300 bytes +353 →Introductions: +eekee