[Someone]

The (current) title used on HN (“Google ML Compiler Inlining Achieves 3-7% Reduction in Size”) is confusing. It made me think Google is using ML (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ML_(programming_language))

It also is not the one of the referred page, which is “MLGO: A Machine Learning Framework for Compiler Optimization”.

This is about an LLVM extension that uses Machine Learning.

I think it would be better to change the title here.

[elromulous]

I think for >99% of folks, ML means machine learning, even if you put compiler after it.

[blululu]

A quick google search on the subject is not so clear cut (try ML compiler and Compiler ML). In either case, this is a discussion of compilers where audience skews toward an interest in programming languages. In this context abbreviation is ambiguous.

I think a rename would be helpful in clearly outlining the subject. Something like 'Google Deep Learning based Compiler Achieves 3-7% reduction in size' would get the point across clearly.

[siftrics]

Eh, the OCaml crowd is surely reasonably large, and they would all be familiar with ML.

I had the same question as the parent commenter and had to wait until the page loaded before determining whether the article was about machine learning or the programming language.

[NavinF]

> the OCaml crowd is surely reasonably large

...and other things HNers tell themselves. More at 11.

Seriously tho, I’m unable to find market share numbers because most survey results only list the top 35 or so languages. The last one is COBOL at 0.5%. For comparison, the Lizardman Constant is 4%: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...

[Banana699]

There is also the much larger confusion arising of whether it's an ML compiler in the sense of being a specialized compiler for ML code (compiles a description of a network to efficient ML-specific low-level IR to enable further optimization and code generation), or whether it's an ML compiler, a compiler (or part of it) that uses ML.

The first meaning is extremly common, the top 2 results for "ML Compiler" on google returns[1][2], both using it in the first sense. It's not that ML or ML-like techniques in compiler writing is new but the first sense is definitely at least as popular an interpretation.

[1] https://huyenchip.com/2021/09/07/a-friendly-introduction-to-...

[2] https://petewarden.com/2021/12/24/why-are-ml-compilers-so-ha...

[davidatbu]

100% agreed that the actual title is much better than the editorialized title.