King_Harold: You are obviously disillusioned, and you don't know the work involved. Technology is not even close to advanced enough to write a compiler that can produce code that is "handwritten". Even on a 3 Ghz processor the compiler would be slow enough to make you want to kill yourself. Of course someone can do it for proof of concept, but that defeats the whole point.King Harold wrote:Oh no it isn't, I know full well how hard it is. But then, I never said I could write a better compiler/optimizer. Other people should (there are bound to be people who can)Halifax wrote:Yes, floating point math is tedious.
Uhh, but I have no idea what you just said. There is more of a process to C compilation, then I think you really realize. Why don't you try writing down a few examples of C yourself, and see how you would optimize them. Is the process to time consuming? Not at all possible to do in a compiler?
Believe me it is harder than you think.
Well isn't that what tools are for? Do tedious work for you?
If it doesn't, I'd consider it useless. If the work is not tedious, I could just as well do it myself.
Anyway, if people can write fast/good assembly, then in theory compilers could too. So why don't they? Because their developers just aim for something that works instead of something that is good? Because that is easier? Imo they miss the point.
It is comparable to the common wall of raytracing for realtime games. It just simply isn't going to happen in either one of our lifetimes. Really you should think of all the steps your brain goes through to produce that optimized handwritten code.
I think you will be amazed that the fuzzy logic is simply to great to simulate with a compiler. Talk to the makers of GCC if you don't believe me.