Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!mcdchg!laidbak!obdient!igloo!nevin
From: nevin@igloo.scum.com (Nevin Liber)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Compiler Costs
Message-ID: <2619@igloo.scum.com>
Date: 11 Jul 90 23:33:07 GMT
References: <1797@apctrc.UUCP> <1565@uvm-gen.UUCP> <1990Jul8.183551.13891@nlm.nih.gov> <2617@igloo.scum.com>
Reply-To: nevin@igloo.scum.com (Nevin Liber)
Organization: Igloo public access unix, Northbrook IL
Lines: 26

Let me try and summarize my thoughts on this subject.  (My apologies to
those who inspired my conclusions; news expires too quickly around here
to be able to quote them directly.)

Humans are better than compilers at optimizing small pieces of code.
In this sense, programming is more of an art than a science.  Most
comparisions of compiler output of a single function to the hand-coded
version shows the hand-coded version to be better.

However, humans are not very good at CONSISTENTLY (or correctly, for
that matter) applying their optimzation techniques to all of their code.  
Most don't even know exactly how they do it.  Compilers are better at
applying the same types of optimizations over and over.

And compilers SHOULD be better at that, since it is merely a procedural
(albeit complex) task.  What the humans need to do is understand how
they perform optimizations, so they can design them in to their compilers,
and move the "art" of programming to a higher level of abstraction.


Just some of my thoughts, that's all.  I welcome your comments.
-- 
	NEVIN ":-)" LIBER
	nevin@igloo.scum.com  or  ..!gargoyle!igloo!nevin
	(708) 831-FLYS
Advertisement:  Hire me!