Re: [9fans] caveat... optimizer? the `zero and forget' thread on HN

[erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>]

> No disagreement there on "requiring" optimization. But my
> point was that a programmer should understand the standard
> rather than complain when he gets "surprised" due to his lack
> of knowledge.

i agree that one should know the language.  but i'm not sure i'll
say it's the programmer's fault when the compiler does things to
the programmer.  that to me goes a bit too far.

> /sys/src/cmd follows plan9 c, not c99, right? But pick a
> similar set of programs.  If this happens, I claim it would be
> because programs assume something not guaranteed by the
> compiler.

and i can design a standards-compatable compiler that will break
most any c program.

this is similar to saying that i can design a namespace that will
break almost any plan 9 program.

what i think has broken down is common sense among compiler
writers.  they're too focused on being fast, and not focused enough
on being *useful*.

> > > > it goes without saying, i think a compiler that largely does what you
> > > > ask it to optimizes the scarce resource: developer time.
> > >
> > > That is a separate issue.
> >
> > actually, i think it *is* the issue.
>
> Best way to save developer time is to program in a HLL and not
> worry about bit fiddling. C is not a HLL.

this is a spurious argument, since we are in fact talking about c.

- erik