>compilers today
>overly complex code
>full of assumptions and heuristics
>all backed by llvm
>definition of bloatware
why didn't they keep compilers simple?
Compilers today
Leo Reed
Other urls found in this thread:
ethoberon.ethz.ch
dbai.tuwien.ac.at
arxiv.org
en.wikipedia.org
github.com
twitter.com
Henry King
You can always use the old versions.
Julian Gonzalez
did you post this on a teletype machine? Oh you did over a global packet-switching network that can heal itself when nodes fail? Using a machine that dynamically lays out hypertext in sub millisecond times? Seems complex to me.
Andrew Smith
because reality isn't simple suckless homo
Landon Kelly
What you call bloat are wanted features for others.
Look at a compiler like TCC. Sure, it's fast and simple. The dream of every minimalist. But if you're looking for optimized output rather than fast compiling it's not for you.
Julian Hall
speed of compiled code justifies everything, that's why.
Charles Jenkins
because having compilers that generate better code is better
the point of compilers is not for you to tinker with the source code, the point is for them to generate good binaries
Jackson Ross
>that can heal itself when nodes fail
That was the goal but it seems the internet fell short of it.
Daniel Scott
That book sucks so much. What a horrible way to write my first compiler backend.
Lucas Torres
Only compilers backed by thousands of devs (and not even most of them) use an llvm backend because llvm changes in incompatible ways in every single minor point release, both for APIs (which go out of sync with the opcodes) and opcodes.