I think Proebsting's law [1] overlooks a number of points. Firstly, it is my understanding that compiler optimization made RISC feasible, and if so, then some o

I think Proebsting's law [1] overlooks a number of points. Firstly, it is my understanding that compiler optimization made RISC feasible, and if so, then some of the hardware performance improvement over that period is attributable to compiler technology (at the very least, perhaps he should have compared today's optimizing compiler to a decades-old optimizing compiler, not today's compiler, optimized vs. unoptimized?) Secondly, he is extrapolating from at most two points (assuming his 'before' numbers are valid), and thirdly, with the (comparatively) low-hanging hardware fruit all gone, compiler optimizations have become relatively more useful (especially the work on optimizing concurrent and parallel software.) Nevertheless, I tend to agree that programmer productivity is a worthy goal (and more specifically, those that improve productivity through making it easier to understand programs, so that programmers can more quickly produce programs that work properly.) [1] See Marvy's comment for a link to the law: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16751813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16751813