Re: [9fans] Compiling ken-cc on Linux

[Ryan Gonzalez <rymg19@gmail.com>]

On November 28, 2015 12:42:25 AM CST, da Tyga <cyberfonic@gmail.com> wrote:
>I have been following this discussion about the C compiler and can no
>longer stop myself from making a (snarky?) comment.
>

If you thing this is snarky, you've never visited the Final Fantasy XV board on GameFAQs! ;)

>The K&R standard for C was very much written when the C language was a
>higher than assembler language for the PDP-11 (at least that's how I
>became
>acquainted with it back in 1976).  Most of us, in those days, welcomed
>something that was more high level than macro-assembler and yet
>amenable to
>writing operating systems and utilities (unlike FORTRAN, ALGOL and
>COBOL of
>that era).  Many of us would use the -s switch to check the generated
>assembler code and in some cases even modify the assembler code for
>selected functions to get exactly the desired result.
>
>The PDP-11 had a rather simple instruction set, thus the compiler
>produced
>relatively predictable code.  The undefined behaviours in many cases
>meant
>that at least on the PDP-11 we would know what to expect.  It was only
>once
>code was ported to other systems that these assumptions started getting
>sorely tested.
>
>Fast forward to present time, we have a bloated C standard and even
>more
>bloated C++ standards.  The target instruction sets are rich with lots
>of
>special case instructions; out of sequence execution; multi-level
>caches
>add further constraints.  So today's compilers need to analyse complex
>source code to run with good performance on extremely complex targets. 
>We
>shouldn't forget that in the case of the x86 family the compilers need
>to
>optimise for an ever evolving instruction set and retain backward
>compatibility across earlier variants.
>

I think the issue is trying to fix a broken problem. Perfect compatibility is pretty much impossible, but most attempts done to fix it just shift the pain to somewhere else. What's the quote about complexity not disappearing, just moving around?

I prefer languages that prefer correctness to perfect, cross-platform APIs that consist of 2000 functions, and no one knows what the hell half of them do.

>
>On 28 November 2015 at 12:01, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
>wrote:
>
>> > Funny, but actually I was wondering if there is any subtle issue in
>the
>> > standards of the C language that makes it somehow hard to
>implement.
>> > For example I've met a few times weird implementations of libraries
>and
>> > frameworks dictated by broken standards: once they are in, they can
>never
>> > be removed due to backward compatibility. I thought that Charles
>(that
>> also
>> > implemented the Limbo compiler) might have referenced these kind of
>> issues
>> > in his pun.
>>
>> i think the simple answer is: no.  but many folks just love
>complexity,
>> and are
>> determined to find it.  if you give such a person one problem,
>they'll
>> come back
>> with two problems.  i call these folks complicators.  don't be a
>> complicator.
>>
>> (i have to remind myself this from time to time.)
>>
>> - erik
>>
>>

-- 
Sent from my Nexus 5 with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
CURRENTLY LISTENING TO: The Key We've Lost (Xenoblade Chronicles X)