> 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.
I'm pretty sure that you can lay that at C's door. Had Algol
> 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?
Basically, increased CPU complexity provid
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.
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
On November 28, 2015 12:42:25 AM CST, da Tyga 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
