Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: tfb Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: the death of optimization compiler Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 17:52:48 -0000 Organization: Compilers Central Sender: johnl%iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <26-10-012@comp.compilers> References: <26-10-010@comp.compilers> <26-10-011@comp.compilers> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="10477"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: Lisp, optimize Posted-Date: 17 Oct 2026 01:56:10 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:3777 wrote: > > It's actually a monolog. You might consider that error messages from > a compiler turn it into a dialog, but that's not how programming in > most languages works (including Lisp, while Rust may be the exception > that proves the rule). > I've spent an awful lot of time incrementally modifying programs in response to optimization notes from CL compilers: 'you didn't tell me enough about this so I[*] couldn't infer a useful thing'; 'OK, here is some more information', or 'OK, let me adjust how I expressed that'. [*] Tragically, I probably now have to say that yes, I understand there is no 'I' talking there. -- tfeb.org/computer/