Talk:Execute Brain****/BASIC/QuickBasic: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(New page: My name's segin <segin2005@gmail.com> and I wrote a Brainfuck interpeter in C, then rewrote it in FreeBASIC (it's almost exactly the same). It includes one extensions, a '0' instruction wh...) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
WARNING!!! It uses a lot of pointer arthimetic and is not secure, i.e. "<+" is all the code needed to overflow since there's no bounds checking. |
WARNING!!! It uses a lot of pointer arthimetic and is not secure, i.e. "<+" is all the code needed to overflow since there's no bounds checking. |
||
:If you have another BF interpreter for a BASIC language, I'm not sure how we should do it. This one should maybe move to RCBF/QuickBASIC? We need a little discussion on this. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 12:13, 4 April 2008 (MDT) |
|||
Revision as of 18:13, 4 April 2008
My name's segin <segin2005@gmail.com> and I wrote a Brainfuck interpeter in C, then rewrote it in FreeBASIC (it's almost exactly the same). It includes one extensions, a '0' instruction which zeros out the memory at the current cell. The current implementation is not Turing complete, however, but it's fast.
WARNING!!! It uses a lot of pointer arthimetic and is not secure, i.e. "<+" is all the code needed to overflow since there's no bounds checking.
- If you have another BF interpreter for a BASIC language, I'm not sure how we should do it. This one should maybe move to RCBF/QuickBASIC? We need a little discussion on this. --Mwn3d 12:13, 4 April 2008 (MDT)