4 ms·

"I could have told them that wouldn't even work well" I have no idea who you are, but IIRC that choice was made while Chris Lattner was still at Apple. I doubt

by bsaul 4y ago

"I could have told them that wouldn't even work well" I have no idea who you are, but IIRC that choice was made while Chris Lattner was still at Apple. I doubt that they could have made a better informed decision at the time.

asveikau 4y ago
And yet it transparently seems like a goofy idea, and they axed it. It could also be that Chris Lattner made that decision based on some constraints or requests that were kind of contrived and make less sense or are no longer valid today.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >And yet it transparently seems like a goofy idea, and they axed it. Nope, they axed it because platform-wise they don't need it: they have desktop/laptop ARM now to use. If they had x86+ARM to support in the future, they'd have kept it. Plus, it worked for years, so there was nothing either about it being "goofy" or "not working" for them behind axing it...
  - asveikau 4y ago
    I'm going to say it is goofy. There was another platform i will leave nameless. They performed additional "ahead of time" type optimization after a developer submitted a binary. That layer had bugs. I personally saw them surface. Since the AOT happened transparently on the platform vendor's machine it was very hard for a developer to test, diagnose, confirm fixed, etc. The developer still got blamed for bugs hitting the end user. That layer one can also imagine could see changes on the platform vendor's server so something could theoretically break later on and nobody would know until the bug reports came flooding to the developer. Because it was a goofy idea. Sounds good superficially, but ill conceived at the design stage. Moreover, that goofiness may also be why they don't need it anymore. It wasn't a solid idea to begin with, so your changing requirements wind up revealing that.

4 ms·

"I could have told them that wouldn't even work well" I have no idea who you are, but IIRC that choice was made while Chris Lattner was still at Apple. I doubt

by bsaul 4y ago

asveikau 4y ago
And yet it transparently seems like a goofy idea, and they axed it. It could also be that Chris Lattner made that decision based on some constraints or requests that were kind of contrived and make less sense or are no longer valid today.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >And yet it transparently seems like a goofy idea, and they axed it. Nope, they axed it because platform-wise they don't need it: they have desktop/laptop ARM now to use. If they had x86+ARM to support in the future, they'd have kept it. Plus, it worked for years, so there was nothing either about it being "goofy" or "not working" for them behind axing it...
  - asveikau 4y ago
    I'm going to say it is goofy. There was another platform i will leave nameless. They performed additional "ahead of time" type optimization after a developer submitted a binary. That layer had bugs. I personally saw them surface. Since the AOT happened transparently on the platform vendor's machine it was very hard for a developer to test, diagnose, confirm fixed, etc. The developer still got blamed for bugs hitting the end user. That layer one can also imagine could see changes on the platform vendor's server so something could theoretically break later on and nobody would know until the bug reports came flooding to the developer. Because it was a goofy idea. Sounds good superficially, but ill conceived at the design stage. Moreover, that goofiness may also be why they don't need it anymore. It wasn't a solid idea to begin with, so your changing requirements wind up revealing that.