Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:2138 comp.lang.c:14407 comp.lang.forth:684 comp.lang.fortran:1551 comp.lang.misc:2221 comp.arch:7381 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!think!barmar From: barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.forth,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch Subject: Re: Assembly or .... Message-ID: <32354@think.UUCP> Date: 30 Nov 88 16:34:05 GMT References: <1388@aucs.UUCP> <729@convex.UUCP> <1961@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <6529@june.cs.washington.edu> <1031@l.cc.purdue.edu> <1989@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Sender: news@think.UUCP Reply-To: barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Lines: 18 In article <1989@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> orr@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Fraser Orr) writes: >I think that there would be great improvements if compilers were interactive. ... >Interactive isn't necessarily the best by the way, since it means >you have to repeat yourself, and the decisions are not documented >in the program. How about if the compiler saved the answers in the program text as explicit ADVICE statements? The compiler becomes a simple form of Programmer's Apprentice, helping the programmer determine where potential optimizations can be specified. The decisions become documented, and they don't have to be repeated. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar