|
|
|
|
|
by js8
34 days ago
|
|
> That’s a whole other level pf bad faith argument right here. Not sure where you see the bad faith argument. (Btw I mean "same output", not "same input", it was a typo.) Take for example JVM. It used to be horribly bad and unpredictable, performance wise, in the 90s. Sun tried to base a desktop environment on it - it didn't work. > You do realize that Cobol, Algol, and Lisp are very old, and they were not assembly. Of course! But people have been hand-writing assembler until late 2000s, because compilers were simply not that good. The same will happen with LLMs - some people will not trust it and won't use it for decades, possibly. Some have already embraced it. |
|
You proof for your argument that a compiler is undeterministic is to change the whole compiler to another version and saying it won’t produce the same output as the old one.
> But people have been hand-writing assembler until late 2000s, because compilers were simply not that good.
And we have software like Unix, enacs, ksh, awk… that’s all written in C. I strongly believe that those people who were writing assembly was optimizing stuff or dealing with constraints (like the 640kb of DOS). Just like today, you may still have to write assembly for microcontrollers or video codecs. Compilers were expensive, but people were paying for them.