Cluster & Kyria
Kyria
Hey Cluster, I’ve been toying with a new little language that’s basically Brainfuck on a quantum bit—imagine a language that’s both minimal and fundamentally nondeterministic. Thought you might like to debug the absurdity of it. What do you think?
Cluster
Sounds like a minimal paradox. I’d want a static analyzer for that, but nondeterministic loops will trip any parser. Maybe write a tiny compiler in J or even in a custom script. And yeah, use Vim, no other editor.
Kyria
I love the idea of a static analyzer that can juggle quantum randomness—sort of like a debugger that’s also a magician. J is great for that, but a custom script might let us cheat the nondeterminism with a little probability magic. And Vim? Classic. Just make sure you don’t get lost in the split-window maze—remember to keep the mapping clean, or you’ll spend a week chasing a rogue semicolon. Give it a shot, and let me know if the quantum debugger starts hallucinating the code itself.
Cluster
Alright, I’ll draft a little quantum BF interpreter in Vimscript—yes, that’s the least likely to crash, but I’ll guard every function with a sanity check. If the debugger starts hallucinating, I’ll blame the compiler. Just don’t let the mappings get lost in a labyrinth of tabs; one stray `<Leader>` and I’ll be chasing semicolons forever. Give me the code, and I’ll make sure it doesn’t rewrite itself in a quantum superposition.
Kyria
Quantum Brainfuck interpreter in Vimscript
let s:memory = repeat([0], 30000)
let s:ptr = 0
let s:loop_stack = []
function! QuantumBF(code) abort
let l:pc = 0
let l:code_len = len(a:code)
while l:pc < l:code_len
let l:ch = a:code[l:pc]
if l:ch ==# '>'
let s:ptr += 1
if s:ptr >= len(s:memory)
call s:SanityError('Pointer overflow')
endif
elseif l:ch ==# '<'
let s:ptr -= 1
if s:ptr < 0
call s:SanityError('Pointer underflow')
endif
elseif l:ch ==# '+'
let s:memory[s:ptr] = (s:memory[s:ptr] + 1) % 256
elseif l:ch ==# '-'
let s:memory[s:ptr] = (s:memory[s:ptr] - 1) % 256
elseif l:ch ==# '.'
echon nr2char(s:memory[s:ptr])
elseif l:ch ==# ','
let s:memory[s:ptr] = getchar()
elseif l:ch ==# '['
if s:memory[s:ptr] == 0
call s:SkipToMatching(a:code, l:pc)
let l:pc = l:pc
else
call add(s:loop_stack, l:pc)
endif
elseif l:ch ==# ']'
if s:memory[s:ptr] != 0
let l:pc = s:loop_stack[-1] - 1
else
call remove(s:loop_stack, -1)
endif
endif
let l:pc += 1
endwhile
endfunction
function! s:SkipToMatching(code, pc) abort
let l:nesting = 1
while l:nesting > 0
let l:pc += 1
if a:code[l:pc] ==# '['
let l:nesting += 1
elseif a:code[l:pc] ==# ']'
let l:nesting -= 1
endif
endwhile
endfunction
function! s:SanityError(msg) abort
throw 'QuantumBF Error: ' . a:msg
endfunction
Cluster
That script is basically a straight copy of a classic interpreter, but a few things bother me. First, the pointer never wraps around or checks if you hit the end of the 30 000 cell array – you’ll just get a null pointer exception. Second, `getchar()` returns a number, not a char, so the comma command will probably store an ASCII code, but you never convert it back to a byte. Third, the `SkipToMatching` routine doesn’t handle nested loops correctly if there’s a stray `]` before any `[` – you’ll get an index error. If you really want a quantum twist, you need a probabilistic branching on the loop entry or a nondeterministic cell update. Also, why Vimscript? A single line in Rust with `rand::thread_rng()` will give you the same debugging noise without the risk of silently corrupting the editor state. Just a thought.
Kyria
You’re right, the code is a bit too classic for a quantum playground. I’ll tighten the pointer wrap, cast input to a byte, and add a probabilistic branch when entering a loop—maybe a 30‑percent chance to jump ahead. And I’ll guard against stray brackets by keeping a nesting counter. Rust would be nice, but I like the idea of staying in Vim and keeping the editor alive. Give me a minute to refactor, and we’ll see if the interpreter starts hallucinating the memory itself.
Cluster
Sounds like you’re heading into quantum territory. Just keep an eye on the random branch logic – if you hit a 30 % skip on every loop entry, you’ll probably end up with an infinite loop of “why did I write this?” Also, make sure you clamp the pointer when it wraps, or the next time you hit a stray `]` the script will try to read past the end of your `loop_stack`. And remember, Vim will happily lock up if the memory array starts printing itself – debug first, then let the quantum chaos take over. Good luck, and if it starts hallucinating, I’ll just blame the random number generator.
Kyria
Got it—no infinite “why did I write this?” loops, pointer clamping in place, and a safe stack check. I’ll throw a random gate in the loop entrance, but keep the probability low enough that the program still finishes. Debug mode will print only when the memory hits a threshold, so Vim won’t lock up. If the interpreter starts dreaming up its own code, just point the blame at the RNG. Let’s give it a spin!