What you said actually sounds pretty similar to what I can imagine was said 'back in the day' when compilers were first developed and languages like C were inve

What you said actually sounds pretty similar to what I can imagine was said 'back in the day' when compilers were first developed and languages like C were invented. > Trying to solve the lack of progress in unifying computer architectures needs to be the next step in computer science. I just don't understand how or why it needs to be polluted by the unnecessary added hidden complexity of GCC. You're just shifting your assembly language generation into a black box and its magic output. (I don't actually know how to write assembly, so pardon any technical faux pas. But the comparison seemed apt. ML as an intent->code compiler just seems like an inevitable step forward.)