Anonymous user
Talk:Short-circuit evaluation: Difference between revisions
→Compiler optimisations?: Too big to miss.
(→Compiler optimisations?: Too big to miss.) |
|||
Line 34:
:: Perhaps apropos is this quote from Charles Moore's 1970 book "PROGRAMMING A PROBLEM-ORIENTED-LANGUAGE" [http://www.colorforth.com/POL.htm Moreover this attitude is reinforced by the massive trend to high-level languages and a placid acceptance of their inefficiencies: What's the use of designing a really good algorithm if the compiler's going to botch it up anyway?] --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 16:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
:::I do remember posts about non-compliant Pascal and C compilers in the 90's but not so much now and if a language states short-circuit evaluation then a compiler that does not preserve that has a major flaw in my book - short-circuit eval. is a feature big enough not to be missed out in a language compilerd test suit methinks. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 16:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
| |||