> Perhaps you spent way too many years in high-level languages that you have started believing magical properties about their compilers. > It does sound like y

> Perhaps you spent way too many years in high-level languages that you have started believing magical properties about their compilers. > It does sound like you were abusing C++ thinking you were "optimizing" code without actually having a clue. > Like in the previous point, it seemed you attributed magical properties to C++ compilers back then, and now you do the same with high-level ones. I think at this point, I'm checking out. You're making a lot of statements and assumptions about who I am, what my background is, what I know, and so on. I neither have the time nor the inclination to debunk them. You don't know me. When you make it personal and start insulting people, that's a good sign you've lost the technical argument. Technical errors in your posts highlight that too. If you do want to have a little bit of fun, though, you should look up the template-based linear algebra libraries of the late nineties and early 00's. They were pretty clever, and for a while, were leading in the benchmarks. They would generate code, at compile time, optimized to the size of your vectors and matrixes, unroll loops, and similar. They seem pretty well-aligned to your background. I think you'll appreciate them.