Cycle counting about brain-flak HOT 3 CLOSED

I think counting a skipped loop counting as 1 cycle is the correct behavior.

Reason 1:
If you had a program that was a few million {()}s long it would take a long time to run. If they each count as 0 cycles the whole program might take a minute to run, but report 0 cycles. That seems weird.

Reason 2:
{()} would translate to something like int a = 0; while(a != 0){do something} in C. I would expect the while to take a non-zero number of CPU cycles. Therefore Brain-Flak should take a non-zero number of cycles to run {()}

from brain-flak.

I see what you are saying. I think if the skipped loop is counted 1 is still the wrong number. I think it should probably cost two if anything. Each successive loop costs 2 additional cycles so it would make more sense to have the zeroth loop cost the same number of cycles.

from brain-flak.

Since there seems to be no disagreement I am going to close this issue and push the changes to master.

from brain-flak.