From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:36:16 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <74f73b64cc6de4a3bd10367591439816@kw.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: <20121029232652.5160BB827@mail.bitblocks.com> References: <15723310.yIARpoJMSL@coil> <4824335454f1b1d47dbc8439b4af8ea3@kw.quanstro.net> <20121029223541.8C198B827@mail.bitblocks.com> <0f05642b113b3ecfc160e82a9ca4db32@brasstown.quanstro.net> <20121029232652.5160BB827@mail.bitblocks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] caveat... optimizer? the `zero and forget' thread on HN Topicbox-Message-UUID: cc951c92-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > 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