> 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
