Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Daniel Bernstein has given an interesting talk about "the death of optimizing compilers" (PDF slides at https://cr.yp.to/talks/2015.04.16/slides-djb-20150416-a4.pdf) claiming that less and less of our code is in that middle ground where it's performance-critical enough to risk running it through an optimizer but not so performance-critical that it needs to be rewritten in assembly.

If we think of the high-level source code (whether in SQL, JS, or Python) as being a functional spec that the low-level implementation should provably follow, maybe we should check them both in, and at build time, run a proof assistant to verify that the implementation still complies with the spec? Rather than running an optimizing compiler every time. I think this is what nanolith is suggesting in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41965701.

Maybe you run the optimizing compiler once when you first write the code, and again when the proof assistant tells you an optimization is no longer valid, but you check the output before you check it in. Or maybe you have the compiler running all the time on a GPU cluster looking for new optimizations.



> maybe you have the compiler running all the time ... looking for new optimizations

Anyone know if there was ever a retrospective on https://github.com/webyrd/Barliman ?


Will is on HN*, though I don't know whether he'll see this topic.

* https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=will_byrd


Sufficiently “advanced”* program synthesis is indistinguishable from compiler optimization?

*(= “correct”?)

[sufficiently constrained madness is indistinguishable from ikigai?]


I haven't reached 70, so maybe we should see if 画狂老人, who did (although not 110) ever mentioned ikigai?


Pardon my ongoing lack of attention— pray tell what number base?


in qua talibus Indorum fruimur bis quinque figuris: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1363084/

(our own convention; the fox has Hox, and the lion too, but they'd probably count in octal. For those keeping score, compare The House of Asterion: "The original says fourteen, but there is ample reason to infer that, as used by Asterion, this numeral stands for infinite")

Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiXINuf5nbI#t=120s

EDIT: while we're at it, maybe I should specify units as orbits of Sol III?


I haven't seen one. He's apparently morphing into a YouTuber, though, so maybe we should grep his .vtts.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: