Hacker News Reader

Comment by LtWorf | Hacker News Reader

> C is essentially portable assembly

Not really, assembly shows you what the machine instructions actually are. In C you have loops, functions structs. All things that make no sense in assembly.

View on HN

Both points are specious. C disassembly is usually not an orthogonal translation of the structures in the code, usually due to optimisation.

> In C you have loops, functions structs. All things that make no sense in assembly.

One can reasonably infer that a loop will roughly translate to some type of conditional jump instruction. Function structs are just pointers and call instructions. The former point was that there is little runtime getting in the way of how the constructs could be expressed, and a long time ago it may have been the truth, but not for modern compilers.

Loops (conditional JMPS - JE/JNE/JZ/JNZ/JB/JNB.. and a dozen others) and functions (CALL, RET) exist in assembly. Goto is there too (all JMPs). C makes assembly sense.

Oh that's an interesting thought. Goto's are considered harmful, because holy hell as a human trying to understand and reason about code, the spaghettifcation if someone else used gotos all over the place and I have to reconstruct their thought process just doesn't sound like fun. But if we're no longer writing code by hand (which, I gotta be honest, I'm using AI to write a lot of code for me these days), then does that still matter? If a human isn't going to have to understand the code, can we get more performance out of existing systems by considering goto's useful?

Compilers only really use them for things like break and the end if blocks. There isn't much to gain by being able to execute anything arbitrarily, and then go...where? There might be places here and there within a function where compilers already take advantage of it, but I doubt it's useful in the way you think.

in C it's quite normal to set a return code and jump to a cleanup section where all the buffers are freed, all the files closed and so on.

I assume there's a clear technical reason why GOTO is harmful, it adds to the complexity of the code, makes it harder to understand and fix and evolve. Wouldn't the same difficulties affect the LLMs ability to understand and fix and evolve the code as well?

As a human with a human level of working memory, the number of things I can keep in my head and map to concepts and functions is unfortunately limited. An AI running on an Nvidia supercomputer has higher limitations on what it can hold in its working memory, so could theoretically handle more than my human brain can.

But it won't because it's a language model no an artificial intelligence.

goto is already useful as an end-of-function cleanup. You pop one at the end of each function (the naming is local to the function) and that's the place where you free ram if the pointer's not null and close the file if the handle is not null and so on.

Then you don't have to litter all of your if/else clauses with hundreds of memory frees and cleanups - you just "goto"

The fact that this is controversial to some people just shows how rules like "Dont use goto" become stupid - if one is trying to make code simpler then there are cases were not using it is the more confusing and error prone choice.

As for "can we now do anything" well if you don't ever need to debug "anything" then yes and if you have any small doubts about your LLM then no.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com