> To me, this why AVX didn't get widespread use AVX has seen very, very widespread use across mobile, desktop, gaming, and server platforms. It's over 10 years

> To me, this why AVX didn't get widespread use AVX has seen very, very widespread use across mobile, desktop, gaming, and server platforms. It's over 10 years old. Probably every hand-optimized vectorized x86 routine in the past 10 years has seen AVX thrown at it. Not every programmer can write it, but it sees absolutely tons of widespread usage and can be written by many competent programmers. > If you want humans to use a performance feature, it needs to be easy to use. In practice for general purpose "messy" compute kernels (e.g. parse this JSON/CBOR bullshit with SIMD) there is still a very wide gap between hand-written intrinsic code and what the compiler can generate. Most compilers in popular languages don't have the leeway to automatically perform the necessary optimizations/"setup" that a human must perform to fully exploit these tools, so this is not an easy fight to win. For limited domains, and with the correct semantic design, however, you can either achieve or exceed human performance with high level semantics e.g. Halide. > Yet the code itself is probably harder to understand and reason about than just a few lines of assembly code. It's really not. Hacker news sucks shit to read code on, but the above code is in no way harder or worse than a raw assembly routine using AVX instructions. If anything it's less error prone, because the compiler takes care of a ton of incidental but necessary drudgery too, such as handling PIC (something 99% of people forget immediately) and eliminating the need for an outlined function. Not to mention you can leave the compiler to do all the annoying shit like sinking or coalescing stores/loads along the codepath, accurate DWARF/debug information without things breaking, etc.