The Shrine

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '><b>Link:</b> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck">++++++++++[+++++++++++++++++++++-]</a>

Jesus...what a language!</div>

<div style='font: 11pt Dominion; text-align: left; '>wtf? Is it ok if I don't understand a lick of that language?</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>It's a language just for the hell of it, so yes. You're limited to working with a single byte at a time, and going only one byte backwards or forwards, which is far more limited than even assembly language.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>When you think about it, though, you could compose an assembly compiler like that only usings letters and symbols. The command set is small enough, even if it is much larger than the 8 or so commands on this one. Can't believe the entire compiler is only 4KB.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>And you might be surprised how many instructions there are in Intel's x86 instruction set. Go check the manuals if you're curious (yes, two; they split it halfway through the alphabet).</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>Well, calling GCC is just cheating. You'd have to write the compiler in assembly. As far as Intel set, I was just talking about the basic set, without all of the MMX and other crap in there. A 486-era compiler should be small enough.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>First of all, I think you have your phrasing screwed up. I think you mean to say "You'd have to generate assembly," not write the compiler in assembly. A source-to-source compiler is still a compiler. The first C++ compiler written by Stroustrup was a source to source compiler; he parsed C++, generated C code, and depended on a C compiler and linker. He still wrote a compiler. In this case it's trivial because the language itself is trivial. The reason it's so difficult to get anything accomplished in Brainfuck is that you are limited to an extremely myopic view of an abstraction of a computer. And frankly, generating assembly really wouldn't be that difficult either. I also don't think the "basic" x86 instruction set is as small as you think it is.

And I was actually overestimating with 500 lines. I just found some that do it in less than 100.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light", "Century Gothic"; text-align: left; '>You're basically calling another compiler to compile your "converted" program. So, it's cheating. A compiler is supposed to generate machine code. An -emulator- or -convertor- could convert it into a different language.</div>

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Like I said, it's just called a source-to-source compiler. I have never heard the terms "emulator" or "convertor" in the area of compilers. Even gcc doesn't generate machine code. It generates assembly code, then calls as to generate the machine code. Do a "man as" and read the description.</div>