Given what most C compilers are written in, are C programmers also C implementers?
I suspect it also depends on who exactly the compiler writers are; the GCC and LLVM guys seem to have more theoretics/academics and thus think of the language more abstractly, leading to UB being truly inexplicable and free of thought, while MSVC and ICC are more on the practical side and their interpretation of it is, as the standard says, "in a documented manner characteristic of the environment". IMHO the "spirit of C" and the more commonsense approach is definitely the latter, and K&R themselves have always leaned in that direction. This is very much a "letter of the law vs. spirit of the law" argument. The fact that these two different sides have produced compilers with nearly the same performance characteristics shows IMHO that the argument of needing to exploit UB is mandatory for performance is a debunked myth.
I doubt it, but that's just a hunch. Is there data out there regarding compiler/language maintainer/standards committee members' contributions to other projects (beyond "so and so person works on $compiler and $application, both written in C"-type anecdotes)?
If not, then, like ... sure, C compiler maintainers people who program in C, but they're not "C programmers" as it was intended (people who develop non-compiler software in C).
My hunch is that that statement is overwhelmingly true if measured by influence of a given C compiler/implementation stack (because GCC/LLVM/MSVC take up a huge slice of the market, and their maintainers are in many cases paid specialists who don't do significant work on other projects), but untrue if measured by count of people who have worked on C compilers (because there are a huge number of small-market-share/niche compilers out there, often maintained by groups who develop those compilers for a specific, often closed-source, platform/SoC/whatever).
The general sentiment from musicians and collectors seems to be that they don't want a bunch of scientists to come into their world and tell them that what they are or are not hearing or they just don't understand why controlled tests are required.
There seems to be the same sentiment from audiophiles against testing their ridiculously overpriced placebos, although sometimes it does happen and the results are exactly as you'd expect: https://hackernews.hn/item?id=47015987
One huge difference is that IDA is much faster and less resource-intensive than Ghidra, on account of the latter being written in Java (not surprisingly) while the former is native code. The Ghidra UI is noticeably laggy to perform basic operations even with tiny binaries, while I haven't noticed anything like that in IDA.
I've seen messages like that from junior employees up to CEOs. I think it's mainly because most people simply can't type and think quickly enough (150-200wpm) that their thoughts naturally become words with next to no effort.
It's worth noting that the longest one there is already much shorter than the classic mid-century unregulated irons, and all of those can be held like a pencil.
This is why I like to go on vacation every year and blow what for most individuals on the earth represents an entire lifetime of co2 emissions just on the airfare.
Take that virtue-signalers, by the time you figure out how to fix the planet I'll be dead.
I suspect it also depends on who exactly the compiler writers are; the GCC and LLVM guys seem to have more theoretics/academics and thus think of the language more abstractly, leading to UB being truly inexplicable and free of thought, while MSVC and ICC are more on the practical side and their interpretation of it is, as the standard says, "in a documented manner characteristic of the environment". IMHO the "spirit of C" and the more commonsense approach is definitely the latter, and K&R themselves have always leaned in that direction. This is very much a "letter of the law vs. spirit of the law" argument. The fact that these two different sides have produced compilers with nearly the same performance characteristics shows IMHO that the argument of needing to exploit UB is mandatory for performance is a debunked myth.
reply