Smallest compiler possible in a turing complete language?

non turing complete languages
esolang
turing incomplete language
is sql turing complete
turing complete blockchain
how to prove turing completeness
is c turing-complete
turing complete excel

Brainfuck is known for its extremely small compilers. I have a VERY small device that probably couldn't fit even the smallest of brainfuck compilers in its data. Is there an esoteric programming language that has even smaller compilers than brainfuck AND is a turing complete language? This is getting old, but feel free to still bring in your own answers, I will be checking

I looked at the size of the Brainfuck compiler (~240 bytes in it's original form) and I doubt you're going to get smaller than that, it was designed to produce the smallest possible compiler (admittedly many years ago).

Although, from Wikipedia:

Except for its two I/O commands, brainfuck is a minor variation of the formal programming language P′′ created by Corrado Böhm in 1964. In fact, using six symbols equivalent to the respective brainfuck commands +, -, <, >, [, ], Böhm provided an explicit program for each of the basic functions that together serve to compute any computable function. So in a very real sense, the first "brainfuck" programs appear in Böhm's 1964 paper – and they were programs sufficient to prove Turing-completeness.

From the P'' page:

P′′ was the first "GOTO-less" imperative structured programming language to be proven Turing-complete.

So a compiler for P'', or a altered version of brainfuck that's equivalent, would be smaller and still turning complete.

However, if I don't follow the spirit of the question then the devices native instruction set will be Turing complete. An assembler will probably be too big but you could directly write the opcode values either into an executable file or a text file that is 'compiled' to an executable. That 'compiler' would probably be smaller. Although it's not a compiler in any real sense of the word, hence not following the spirit of the question.

Is this a real world question? If you don't have space for the compiler then where are your source and binaries going to go?

Related Question: What is the *conceptually* smallest *compiler* that can compile itself?

Turing completeness, The language consists of only eight simple commands and an instruction pointer. While it is fully Turing complete, it is not intended for practical use, but to  In computability theory, a system of data-manipulation rules (such as a computer's instruction set, a programming language, or a cellular automaton) is said to be Turing-complete or computationally universal if it can be used to simulate any Turing machine. This means that this system is able to recognize or decide other data-manipulation rule

I have found the smallest BF compiler expressed using lambda expressions in a Binary form (BLC).

The interpreter is exactly 112 bytes (which is iirc. the exact amount of bytes for the Hello World program in BF itself).

Brainfuck, In general, for an imperative language to be Turing-complete, it needs: you write a compiler (in any language) that can compile any BF program to It must also be possible to simulate the ability to move the tape's head in order to These are the true minimum requirements for a system to be considered Turing complete. Smallest compiler ever [closed] Brainfuck is the ungodly creation of Urban Müller, whose goal was apparently to create a Turing-complete language for which he could write the smallest compiler ever, for the Amiga OS 2.0. His compiler was 240 bytes in size.

TinyBF has half as many instructions as BF, so it should be simpler to create a compiler for it.

=   Switch direction (- <-> +) (default: +)
+   Change data in selected direction. BF equivalents: - +
>   Change cell in selected direction. BF equivalents: < >
|   Jump in selected direction. BF equivalents: ] [
==  Output. BF equivalent: .
|=| if switch is positive, =|=| if switch is negative.  Input. BF equivalents: ,

There are many other languages similar to BF that might also be viable choices.

What makes a language Turing-complete?, If you drop any of those, you will lose full power, so it is a minimal set of axioms. Turing machine - or an interpreter for any other Turing complete language - in it. only possible function you can write is f(x) = f(x) , is not Turing complete As I said earlier, a Turing complete language needs to be able to  Scratch golf: smallest turing complete language. This is a code golf to see who can write the smallest Turing-complete language interpreter (or compiler) written in Scratch. Source code must come from an ASK AND WAIT block. The programming language must be proved to be Turing-complete.

Are there minimum criteria for a programming language being , intentionally confusing Turing-complete language with the smallest possible compiler. While mainstream programming languages like C++  Created in 1993 by a Swiss physics student named Urban Müller, Brainfuck was an attempt to create a language with the smallest possible compiler. A compiler is a computer program that translates code written in a high-level programming language into something that can be understood by a machine.

Brainfuck: code that was designed to hurt, He wanted to create a language which could be compiled with the smallest compiler possible. Also, the language had to be Turing complete, meaning the  A Turing tarpit is a kind of esoteric programming language which strives to be Turing-complete while using as few elements as possible. Brainfuck is perhaps the best-known tarpit, but there are many. Iota and Jot are functional languages with two and three symbols, respectively, based on the SK(I) combinator calculus .

Analysis of the Programming Language Brainf*ck, was interested in creating a Turing-complete language that had the smallest possible compiler, which is the in-between program that coverts  Possible Duplicate: Are there minimum criteria for a programming language being Turing complete? I overheard a conversation on the topic and the conclusion that one gent came to was that in order to be Turing complete, given one has infinite storage, all one needs is a conditional control structure and a jump instruction. Is this true?

Know Your Language: Brainfucked by Brainfuck, Works of Alan Turing and that of his exegetes did not consider the problem of a Turing-complete language for which he could write the smallest compiler ever  Müller designed Brainfuck with the goal of implementing it with the smallest possible compiler, inspired by the 1024-byte compiler for the FALSE programming language. Müller's original compiler was implemented in machine language and compiled to a binary with a size of 296 bytes.

Comments
  • Why do you need a compiler in the device?
  • it admittedly is not necessary
  • a Turing-complete system is one that can simulate a Turing machine. Turing machine assumes unlimited memory capacity. You can't have unlimited memory capacity on your device, so even if language is turing complete in general, it will not be turing complete in your limited environment.
  • Have ever looked at URISC or the OISC page on esolang, with only one single instruction? I don't know you you can make a compiler with that ... :)
  • @Scony correct me if I am wrong, but it seems the simpler a programming language is, the more memory it needs to get the job done. I appreciate your comment.
  • Thank you! I will probably use P" I would vote up, but I cant because I don't have enough rep ;)
  • its just a few bytes of storage I made, I don't know what I can do with it yet...
  • Got twice smaller than this ;)