Re: Compile Time vs. Run Time, Mixed Language Compiling, Fat Code

nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
> 4. Use of a language with a good type system eliminates the
> edit-compile-bomb-edit cycle, replacing it with an
> edit-typecheck-edit-typecheck cycle. Typechecking is (in general) much
> faster than compilation because it includes no optimisation or code
> transformations. An SML program which successfully typechecks will not
> bomb at runtime.


Then your programs are considerably different from what I'm familiar with.
Most errors are not syntactic or static semantic errors (like type
errors). The vast majority of debugging time is spent isolating and
correcting problems which are not - and cannot be - found by the
typechecks no matter how strict your type system is. To put it another
way: people make mistakes and those mistakes which the compiler (or some
analyzer) can find automatically are the least difficult to find and
correct.


> 6. You suggest that because compiler writers often work for compiler
> companies rather than hardware companies, they either (a) don't know how
> to tweak the hardware in the best way or (b) can't be bothered. [...]


It seems to me that the main problem with compiler writers is not that
they don't work for the hardware vendor (even those that don't often
specialize in a single architecture). The main problem these days is that
compiler writers don't actually *use* the language the compiler is written
to compile. Such compiler jockeys don't understand the issues which are
important to the users.
--
J. Giles
--

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.