Not dogmatic. Just 38 years and I still believe small is beautify. One interesting thing is that for the past twenty years new architectures have been designed to run C code well. Just check out the papers a ISCA. Then why do we have to have such complicated compilers to generate code for it.
> On Nov 28, 2015, at 3:31 PM, Anthony Sorace <a...@9srv.net> wrote: > > Brantley wrote: > >> One could argue that the Plan 9 C compiler lacks the modern optimizations >> that the other compilers have. This would be true. But I would argue that >> almost all of those optimizations are either not needed... > > Note the "almost all" in there. It's important not to get dogmatic about such > things. The argument isn't that kencc is at precisely the perfect point on > the simplicity-vs-optimization spectrum, but that it's pretty darn close, > closer that known alternatives, and errs on the safer side. Likely there are > optimizations or features in newer chipsets that would be worth supporting, > but even so: we've got a long way to go before hitting gcc/clang levels.
