Talk:Brainfuck

Breaking programs/commands into small steps
I do not agree with this edit. There is some significant disagreement about the most appropriate wording. At least two editors obviously have a different opinion than mine.

Here is my rationale:

Computer programming can be descibed as a process of breaking programs down to smaller steps, or similarly, breaking programs down to small "commands".

Therefore, a programmer has to break down programs into (small) commands; in the case of BF, a programmer has to break down programs into microscopic commands.

In my opinion, it is not sensible to say that "commands" need to be broken down, because the "commands" are the end-goal. In BF, they are actually called "commands"; other languages may use different terminology, like "instructions", or "statements". "Commands" are the basic elements provided by any specific programming language; "commands" are not supposed to be divided further.

Here are a few suggestions for alternative wording, which would still be correct from my perspective:
 * "to break tasks down to microscopic steps"
 * "to break tasks down into microscopic commands"
 * "to break desired functionality down to microscopic steps"
 * "to break desired functionality down into microscopic commands"
 * "to break program down into microscopic commands"

I'm not a native english speaker, so this might be a question of language barrier, where different terminology is employed in my native language when compared to English. Can anyone shine some light, what exactly is happening here? I'm quite confused by this strange disagreement. Z80Spectrum (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Machine language
The article states "Müller's original compiler was implemented in machine language and compiled to a binary with a size of 296 bytes." But if it was compiled is was presumably written in assembly language. Machine language is the result of the compilation. BruceThomson (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)