Slides with the talk, not my favorite, have a link to the talk? The second paper is so biased it hurts. It hardly attempts to hide this bias, on the second pag

Slides with the talk, not my favorite, have a link to the talk? The second paper is so biased it hurts. It hardly attempts to hide this bias, on the second page it start referring to one group of people as "clueless" and never justifies it describing what what clued in would be. The second paper also has a strong assumption that compilers should somehow maintain their current undefined behavior going forward. It is almost as though the paper author thinks a compiler can somehow divine what the programmer wants without referring to some pre-agreed upon document, such as the standard for the language. The second paper also talks only about performance and not about any other real world concern, like maintainability, reliability or portability. This paper is setting up straw men when it trots out code with bugs (that loop on page 4) and then a pre-release version of the compiler does something unexpected. Of course non-conforming code breaks when compiled. Of course pre-release compilers are buggy. The paper's author wants code to work the same on all systems even when the code conveys unclear semantics. That is unreasonable.