Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure if those priorities are in the right place.

For example, clang compilation times have slowed down something like 5-6x faster than the code they generate.

As a developer I can come up with better structure in my code much faster if I can try more things out in a day.

Now we want to add LLMs of all things in there? I'm not looking forward to code taking one or two orders of magnitude longer to compile

View on HN

I am not sure why you mention LLM, the post mentions LLVM. Second, you can have different optimization options with different tradeoffs in compile-time and run-time. Third, even if the default and only options distributed with clang are too compile-time intensive, the good news is that this is open source and you could argue against it, or fork and maintain your own compile-time run-time tradeoff compiler along with other people who also want that behaviour. I don't see any benefit of arguing against research. Having new techniques to improve compilers is not a zero sum game.

The LLM confusion (aside from the similar name) might also have come from the "Transformers" discussed in one of the papers linked.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com