News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:On sufficiently smart compilers by username223 on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @08:30PM (#10741772)
> Unreliable optimizations and performance-critical software

This is why we will not have, and should not want, a "sufficiently smart compiler," but instead a "sufficiently predictable compiler." If the compiler is an enormously complex inference system, then tiny language-level changes can result in huge performance changes (see "space leaks" in Haskell, or "auto-vectorization" in basically anything). The solution isn't adding more knobs to the compiler; it's adding easier inter-language communication. Scripting languages like Matlab, Perl, Python, and R have been doing this right for decades: make a good effort at a specific domain (math, text, statistics), and make it easy to call into lower-level code for the key pieces.

Re:On sufficiently smart compilers by codygman on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @09:53PM (#10742055)
Space leaks are a bad example imo since they happen in other languages as well.
Re:On sufficiently smart compilers by Tyr42 on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @10:12PM (#10742116)
Yeah, but having a chain of functions failing to fuse properly can be quite surprising.
Re:On sufficiently smart compilers by codygman on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @10:53PM (#10742264)
There seemed to be an implication that Hindley Milner type inference leads to unpredictable performance, you can see that is untrue with ml and ocaml.