http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4711346
9fans says, ``no room in the compiler world for amateurs''. what's your take
on the above fubar?
--
dexen deVries
[[[↓][→]]]
On Friday, October 26, 2012 11:35:02 AM UTC-4, KevinK wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Very new plan9 user here--just installed plan 9 from user space yesterday.
> Acme seems like a very interesting text editor, and I'd like to give it a
> try. However, after searching around the documentation and w
On Friday, October 26, 2012 11:35:02 AM UTC-4, KevinK wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Very new plan9 user here--just installed plan 9 from user space yesterday.
> Acme seems like a very interesting text editor, and I'd like to give it a
> try. However, after searching around the documentation and w
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:45:33AM +0100, dexen deVries wrote:
> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4711346
>
> 9fans says, ``no room in the compiler world for amateurs''. what's your take
> on the above fubar?
That when one does programming, one tries to have not fuzzy behavior,
that is to kno
On Mon Oct 29 05:47:10 EDT 2012, dexen.devr...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4711346
>
> 9fans says, ``no room in the compiler world for amateurs''. what's your take
> on the above fubar?
any sort of "advanced" code-moving optimization is confusing. but the
way c/c++ ar
> The man to texinfo transition has not improved the information but, on
> the contrary, the size and complexity of informations, decreasing the
> ratio signal/noise.
from lions, i get only 7889 lines of code in the v6 kernel; the gcc
man page is 13000+, the last i checked.
- erik
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:35:00 EDT erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Mon Oct 29 05:47:10 EDT 2012, dexen.devr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4711346
> >
> > 9fans says, ``no room in the compiler world for amateurs''. what's your tak
> e
> > on the above fubar?
>
> any sort
He can fool it once, but can he fool it twice? Can he recompile?
On 29 October 2012 22:35, Bakul Shah wrote:
> But it is easy to fool compilers to do what he wanted
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:47:02 - Charles Forsyth
wrote:
>
> He can fool it once, but can he fool it twice? Can he recompile?
Why not. Compilers never get wise to the ways of sneaky programmers!
On Mon Oct 29 19:06:41 EDT 2012, ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:47:02 - Charles Forsyth
> wrote:
> >
> > He can fool it once, but can he fool it twice? Can he recompile?
>
> Why not. Compilers never get wise to the ways of sneaky programmers!
feedback-based optimizat
On Mon Oct 29 18:37:11 EDT 2012, ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:35:00 EDT erik quanstrom
> wrote:
> > On Mon Oct 29 05:47:10 EDT 2012, dexen.devr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4711346
> > >
> > > 9fans says, ``no room in the compiler world fo
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 4:07 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Mon Oct 29 19:06:41 EDT 2012, ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:47:02 - Charles Forsyth <
> charles.fors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > He can fool it once, but can he fool it twice? Can he recompile?
> >
> > Wh
> Call me crazy, but I always felt compilers were there to emit code that
> reflected what I wrote, not what it thinks it can do a better job writing
> for me. People complain that Go is not a good systems language due to the
> garbage collector. Maybe C isn't a good language due to all the place
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:10:55 EDT erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Mon Oct 29 18:37:11 EDT 2012, ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:35:00 EDT erik quanstrom wr
> ote:
> > > On Mon Oct 29 05:47:10 EDT 2012, dexen.devr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:26:52 PDT Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> /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.
Oops. Meant to say "not guaranteed by the stand
> 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
"But my point was that a programmer should understand the standard"
But suppose the standard does not evidently aim to be understood, in the
generally understood meaning of "understood",
or there are more words in the standard than will ever appear in the
programmer's own programs?
Worse! "Standar
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 05:53:17PM -0600, andrey mirtchovski wrote:
> > the vodka is strong, but the meat is rotten.
>
> wait, you're saying this as if it's a bad thing‽
>
check your syslog for messages about references whizzing past your
terminal
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 19:36:16 EDT erik quanstrom wrote:
> > 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
m(
--
cinap
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 23:58:23 - Charles Forsyth
wrote:
>
> "But my point was that a programmer should understand the standard"
>
> But suppose the standard does not evidently aim to be understood, in the
> generally understood meaning of "understood",
> or there are more words in the standa
> The C standard is not too hard to understand. For something
> worse try one of those ITU standards! Try IEEE 802 standards!
> I have had to read the Bridging standard many many more times
> (compared to the C standard) to make sense of it. The
> standards *shouldn't* be so horrible but they are.
On Mon Oct 29 20:36:26 EDT 2012, ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
> Not a question of fault but IMHO a programmer, like a
> carpenter or anyone who does real work, has to experiment and
> learn the strengths and weaknesses of his tools of his trade
> if he wants to become competent.
>
> The language sta
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 04:26:52PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> Best way to save developer time is to program in a HLL and not
> worry about bit fiddling. C is not a HLL.
>
Two problems with this:
1) Developer time is not worth saving, because developers are cheap and
they don't use their time
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:10:41 EDT erik quanstrom wrote:
>
> you are arguing for a cartoon hammer that runs away when you're
> not looking at it.
That is an excellent definition of optimization! Typical
optimizations:
- putting a variable in a register
- caching a value in a register
- moving a
On 29 October 2012 23:06, Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> gcc etc. are used to deliver a lot of code that is used in
> real word. And without a standard there would've been lot
> less interoperability and far more bugs.
Most interoperability delivered by gcc comes from the fact that gcc is
widespread, n
26 matches
Mail list logo
