Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: Derek M Jones Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: the death of optimization compiler Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2026 20:42:08 +0100 Organization: Compilers Central Sender: johnl%iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <26-10-016@comp.compilers> References: <26-10-010@comp.compilers> <26-10-011@comp.compilers> <26-10-013@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="6343"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: optimize, comment Posted-Date: 17 Oct 2026 21:29:15 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com In-Reply-To: <26-10-013@comp.compilers> Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:3781 Stefan, > For 99% of my code, the compiler does a good enough job, but for the > remaining case, I often would like to be able to state some specific > property which I'd like to get, but often it's hard to state it clearly > in terms of the source code in a way that will still make sense further > down the compilation stages. I think that programming language could become a build time option https://shape-of-code.com/2026/10/11/programming-language-choice-is-becoming-a-build-option/ Why not specify language constructs specific to your case and modify the compiler to map these to the appropriate optimised form? Ok, at the moment, even with coding agents, this still requires a decent chunk of work. This time next year, it might on the way to being the norm. -- Derek M. Jones Evidence-based software engineering blog:https://shape-of-code.com [This reminds me of the extensible languages like EL/1 and IMP72 that were popular in the 1970s. They ended up being unusable because every program was in a different language. -John]