<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_03_0143233</id>
	<title>IBM Releases Open Source Machine Learning Compiler</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246642920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>sheepweevil writes <i>"<a href="http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/27874.wss">IBM just released</a> <a href="http://www.milepost.eu/">Milepost GCC</a>, 'the world's first open source machine learning compiler.' The compiler analyses the software and determines which code optimizations will be most effective during compilation using machine learning techniques. Experiments carried out with the compiler achieved an average 18\% performance improvement.  The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software, because lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler. A new <a href="http://ctuning.org/wiki/index.php/Main\_Page">code tuning website</a> has been launched to coincide with the compiler release.  The website features collaborative performance tuning and sharing of interesting optimization cases."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>sheepweevil writes " IBM just released Milepost GCC , 'the world 's first open source machine learning compiler .
' The compiler analyses the software and determines which code optimizations will be most effective during compilation using machine learning techniques .
Experiments carried out with the compiler achieved an average 18 \ % performance improvement .
The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software , because lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler .
A new code tuning website has been launched to coincide with the compiler release .
The website features collaborative performance tuning and sharing of interesting optimization cases .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sheepweevil writes "IBM just released Milepost GCC, 'the world's first open source machine learning compiler.
' The compiler analyses the software and determines which code optimizations will be most effective during compilation using machine learning techniques.
Experiments carried out with the compiler achieved an average 18\% performance improvement.
The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software, because lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler.
A new code tuning website has been launched to coincide with the compiler release.
The website features collaborative performance tuning and sharing of interesting optimization cases.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28575869</id>
	<title>Optimising Haskell Programs</title>
	<author>cdfh</author>
	<datestamp>1246621860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don Stewart wrote about <a href="http://donsbot.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/evolving-faster-haskell-programs/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">optimising Haskell programs using genetic algroithms</a> [wordpress.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Don Stewart wrote about optimising Haskell programs using genetic algroithms [ wordpress.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don Stewart wrote about optimising Haskell programs using genetic algroithms [wordpress.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570343</id>
	<title>"Lengthy manual optimization"?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1246627080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software, because<br>&gt; lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler.</p><p>I always thought that testing and debugging were the lengthy manual steps.  Oh.  Wait.  "Time to market".  They're talking about proprietary software.  Never mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software , because &gt; lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler.I always thought that testing and debugging were the lengthy manual steps .
Oh. Wait .
" Time to market " .
They 're talking about proprietary software .
Never mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software, because&gt; lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler.I always thought that testing and debugging were the lengthy manual steps.
Oh.  Wait.
"Time to market".
They're talking about proprietary software.
Never mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568997</id>
	<title>Long Compile time - Long time to market ?</title>
	<author>rdebath</author>
	<datestamp>1246651320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somebody's been looking at XKCD<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <a href="http://xkcd.com/303/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/303/</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody 's been looking at XKCD ... http : //xkcd.com/303/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody's been looking at XKCD ... http://xkcd.com/303/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569691</id>
	<title>The Ultimate Test...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246617660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is if it could optimize itself to make it a better optimized compiler?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is if it could optimize itself to make it a better optimized compiler ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is if it could optimize itself to make it a better optimized compiler?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28571797</id>
	<title>Re:I for one?</title>
	<author>\_32nHz</author>
	<datestamp>1246636620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it much harder to imagine a sentience without the ability to evolve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it much harder to imagine a sentience without the ability to evolve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it much harder to imagine a sentience without the ability to evolve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568827</id>
	<title>Re:Few Questions for any programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246562220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Classic examples:

<ul>
<li>Replace a mod (e.g. x \% 32) with a bitwise-and (e.g. x &amp; 31) when the divisor is a power of two. Nearly every compiler does this now, but twenty years ago it was a common manual optimization trick.</li><li>Replace a branch with an arithmetic operation that yields the same result.<blockquote><div><p> <tt>i &lt; 0 ? -i : i</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>vs</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>cdq<br>xor eax, edx<br>sub eax, edx</tt></p></div> </blockquote></li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Classic examples : Replace a mod ( e.g .
x \ % 32 ) with a bitwise-and ( e.g .
x &amp; 31 ) when the divisor is a power of two .
Nearly every compiler does this now , but twenty years ago it was a common manual optimization trick.Replace a branch with an arithmetic operation that yields the same result .
i vs cdqxor eax , edxsub eax , edx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Classic examples:


Replace a mod (e.g.
x \% 32) with a bitwise-and (e.g.
x &amp; 31) when the divisor is a power of two.
Nearly every compiler does this now, but twenty years ago it was a common manual optimization trick.Replace a branch with an arithmetic operation that yields the same result.
i  vs cdqxor eax, edxsub eax, edx 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568705</id>
	<title>Dumb Summary</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1246560720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>automatically learn how to best optimise programs for re-configurable heterogeneous embedded processors</p></div><p>That's kinda important to mention no?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>automatically learn how to best optimise programs for re-configurable heterogeneous embedded processorsThat 's kinda important to mention no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>automatically learn how to best optimise programs for re-configurable heterogeneous embedded processorsThat's kinda important to mention no?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568769</id>
	<title>I for one?</title>
	<author>Anenome</author>
	<datestamp>1246561560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who would've guessed a compiler would become the first program to achieve sentience<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;P</p><p>It will surely, er, program our programs to kill us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who would 've guessed a compiler would become the first program to achieve sentience ; PIt will surely , er , program our programs to kill us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who would've guessed a compiler would become the first program to achieve sentience ;PIt will surely, er, program our programs to kill us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569097</id>
	<title>Gentoo</title>
	<author>karstux</author>
	<datestamp>1246652940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if I'd compile a Linux from scratch with this new compiler, everything speeds up by 18\% on average? That would be quite impressive, and possibly the best justification for Gentoo. Might be nice for my aging notebook...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I 'd compile a Linux from scratch with this new compiler , everything speeds up by 18 \ % on average ?
That would be quite impressive , and possibly the best justification for Gentoo .
Might be nice for my aging notebook.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I'd compile a Linux from scratch with this new compiler, everything speeds up by 18\% on average?
That would be quite impressive, and possibly the best justification for Gentoo.
Might be nice for my aging notebook...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569963</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1246621440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>eventually, it'll probably re-write all of the code to do everything better, and without mistakes. but that's in about 100 years or so (probably more). for now, be happy with what you've got.</htmltext>
<tokenext>eventually , it 'll probably re-write all of the code to do everything better , and without mistakes .
but that 's in about 100 years or so ( probably more ) .
for now , be happy with what you 've got .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eventually, it'll probably re-write all of the code to do everything better, and without mistakes.
but that's in about 100 years or so (probably more).
for now, be happy with what you've got.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570609</id>
	<title>Re:Less time? How about same time, better product?</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1246629240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you ask hin in december, he certainly will opt for the quality product in february.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ask hin in december , he certainly will opt for the quality product in february .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ask hin in december, he certainly will opt for the quality product in february.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570289</id>
	<title>Re:Automation...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246626480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... can create stupid humans. Let's embrace technology but beware of falling into ignorance.</p></div><p>Impoverished people have a higher IQ than wealthy people.  Use it or lose it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... can create stupid humans .
Let 's embrace technology but beware of falling into ignorance.Impoverished people have a higher IQ than wealthy people .
Use it or lose it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... can create stupid humans.
Let's embrace technology but beware of falling into ignorance.Impoverished people have a higher IQ than wealthy people.
Use it or lose it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570093</id>
	<title>mo3 3own</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246623780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Darren Reed, which Lite is straining members' creative the public eye: you should bring = 1400 NetBSD I won't bore you Look at your soft, all; in order to go tangle of fatal is busy infighting distributions bloc in order to Minutes. If that. and enjoy all the</htmltext>
<tokenext>Darren Reed , which Lite is straining members ' creative the public eye : you should bring = 1400 NetBSD I wo n't bore you Look at your soft , all ; in order to go tangle of fatal is busy infighting distributions bloc in order to Minutes .
If that .
and enjoy all the</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Darren Reed, which Lite is straining members' creative the public eye: you should bring = 1400 NetBSD I won't bore you Look at your soft, all; in order to go tangle of fatal is busy infighting distributions bloc in order to Minutes.
If that.
and enjoy all the</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568763</id>
	<title>Re:Few Questions for any programmers</title>
	<author>walshy007</author>
	<datestamp>1246561440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it optimizes the translation of  to assembly opcodes. When you code the stuff you type is not in the binary that's compiled/assembled/linked.</p><p>I highly recommend you add a tiny amount of assembly programming dabbling to that list, and you will gain better understanding of how compiler optimization is not a simple affair. There are many ways to do the same thing.</p><p>As for an example of a basic optimization method, removing dead code, code that is in there but never called by the main method.</p><p>Another one is vector optimization, where certain routines or parts of routines where it's suitable use the vector units of a cpu to speed things up a little.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it optimizes the translation of to assembly opcodes .
When you code the stuff you type is not in the binary that 's compiled/assembled/linked.I highly recommend you add a tiny amount of assembly programming dabbling to that list , and you will gain better understanding of how compiler optimization is not a simple affair .
There are many ways to do the same thing.As for an example of a basic optimization method , removing dead code , code that is in there but never called by the main method.Another one is vector optimization , where certain routines or parts of routines where it 's suitable use the vector units of a cpu to speed things up a little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it optimizes the translation of  to assembly opcodes.
When you code the stuff you type is not in the binary that's compiled/assembled/linked.I highly recommend you add a tiny amount of assembly programming dabbling to that list, and you will gain better understanding of how compiler optimization is not a simple affair.
There are many ways to do the same thing.As for an example of a basic optimization method, removing dead code, code that is in there but never called by the main method.Another one is vector optimization, where certain routines or parts of routines where it's suitable use the vector units of a cpu to speed things up a little.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28572073</id>
	<title>The title is wrong</title>
	<author>Framboise</author>
	<datestamp>1246638180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chauvinism is everywhere, but in this case it is particularly striking.  It is not IBM that releases MILEPOST Gcc, but IBM Israel *announces* the release of MILEPOST Gcc, a project funded by the European Union where 4 European partners and IBM Israel have contributed.  IBM is at its best with marketting, that we already know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chauvinism is everywhere , but in this case it is particularly striking .
It is not IBM that releases MILEPOST Gcc , but IBM Israel * announces * the release of MILEPOST Gcc , a project funded by the European Union where 4 European partners and IBM Israel have contributed .
IBM is at its best with marketting , that we already know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chauvinism is everywhere, but in this case it is particularly striking.
It is not IBM that releases MILEPOST Gcc, but IBM Israel *announces* the release of MILEPOST Gcc, a project funded by the European Union where 4 European partners and IBM Israel have contributed.
IBM is at its best with marketting, that we already know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569757</id>
	<title>Summary is extremely misleading</title>
	<author>Skuto</author>
	<datestamp>1246618380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software,<br>&gt;because lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler.</p><p>The time to *make a new compiler* for a certain processor is reduced, and the<br>process of figuring which optimizations are should be in the compiler for that architecture<br>is automated.</p><p>This is for the kind of research where they attempt to make many specialized processors<br>on a single chip instead of a general monolithic one. In this case, you need many<br>compilers and tuning those is important. It's the time optimizing THOSE that is lowered,<br>not the one of writing the software that is compiled itself.</p><p>I see no real relevance to the "normal" desktop situation on that website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software , &gt; because lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler.The time to * make a new compiler * for a certain processor is reduced , and theprocess of figuring which optimizations are should be in the compiler for that architectureis automated.This is for the kind of research where they attempt to make many specialized processorson a single chip instead of a general monolithic one .
In this case , you need manycompilers and tuning those is important .
It 's the time optimizing THOSE that is lowered,not the one of writing the software that is compiled itself.I see no real relevance to the " normal " desktop situation on that website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software,&gt;because lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler.The time to *make a new compiler* for a certain processor is reduced, and theprocess of figuring which optimizations are should be in the compiler for that architectureis automated.This is for the kind of research where they attempt to make many specialized processorson a single chip instead of a general monolithic one.
In this case, you need manycompilers and tuning those is important.
It's the time optimizing THOSE that is lowered,not the one of writing the software that is compiled itself.I see no real relevance to the "normal" desktop situation on that website.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570781</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1246630380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will it find places when I am calculating something in a tight loop and move the code somewhere higher?</p></div><p>No, and it doesn't need to, since vanilla GCC has had that optimisation for <em>years</em>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will it find places when I am calculating something in a tight loop and move the code somewhere higher ? No , and it does n't need to , since vanilla GCC has had that optimisation for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will it find places when I am calculating something in a tight loop and move the code somewhere higher?No, and it doesn't need to, since vanilla GCC has had that optimisation for years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569233</id>
	<title>Re:Less time? How about same time, better product?</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1246654620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Instead of same quality, less money, make it better quality, same money?</p> </div><p>Yes, that always works.</p><p>I'm asking my client right now whether he wants a quality product in february or a barely working one in october. Let's see what happens.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of same quality , less money , make it better quality , same money ?
Yes , that always works.I 'm asking my client right now whether he wants a quality product in february or a barely working one in october .
Let 's see what happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of same quality, less money, make it better quality, same money?
Yes, that always works.I'm asking my client right now whether he wants a quality product in february or a barely working one in october.
Let's see what happens.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569247</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Summary</title>
	<author>Fullers</author>
	<datestamp>1246611600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Developing a good optimizing compiler quickly is very important when the hardware can change very easily, which is why it works well for reconfigurable processors.

However, the results are impressive even on static architectures like x86 and PPC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Developing a good optimizing compiler quickly is very important when the hardware can change very easily , which is why it works well for reconfigurable processors .
However , the results are impressive even on static architectures like x86 and PPC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Developing a good optimizing compiler quickly is very important when the hardware can change very easily, which is why it works well for reconfigurable processors.
However, the results are impressive even on static architectures like x86 and PPC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568795</id>
	<title>Re:Few Questions for any programmers</title>
	<author>contr0l</author>
	<datestamp>1246561800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Again, didnt even cross my mind. thanks alot.
I would also be interested in taking a look at assembly, but all I hear about it is that is very hard to grasp, and not necessary with all the languages out there. But I will deff take a look into it to get a better idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Again , didnt even cross my mind .
thanks alot .
I would also be interested in taking a look at assembly , but all I hear about it is that is very hard to grasp , and not necessary with all the languages out there .
But I will deff take a look into it to get a better idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Again, didnt even cross my mind.
thanks alot.
I would also be interested in taking a look at assembly, but all I hear about it is that is very hard to grasp, and not necessary with all the languages out there.
But I will deff take a look into it to get a better idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568763</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569081</id>
	<title>Re:Few Questions for any programmers</title>
	<author>Another, completely</author>
	<datestamp>1246652760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that it's a good idea to learn assembly / machine language to understand what a compiler is doing, but learning the assembly language of the computer you use at home is not as reasonable a suggestion today as it once was.  Learning to code to a 6802 wasn't bad; it only has a few instructions, and it's very instructive (and fun) to find out how many things you can do with just those.  I think trying to write for your home PC in assembly is now beyond a beginner exercise though.</p><p>Microcontroller manufacturers often provide emulators and assemblers for their products, so you might download one of those to try.  Then, when you get the hang of it, maybe a developer board and some 7-seg LEDs to build a calculator or something.  Coding to this year's Intel chips is best left to the compilers and the mystics.</p><p>Anybody out there know a good emulator for teaching assembly programming?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that it 's a good idea to learn assembly / machine language to understand what a compiler is doing , but learning the assembly language of the computer you use at home is not as reasonable a suggestion today as it once was .
Learning to code to a 6802 was n't bad ; it only has a few instructions , and it 's very instructive ( and fun ) to find out how many things you can do with just those .
I think trying to write for your home PC in assembly is now beyond a beginner exercise though.Microcontroller manufacturers often provide emulators and assemblers for their products , so you might download one of those to try .
Then , when you get the hang of it , maybe a developer board and some 7-seg LEDs to build a calculator or something .
Coding to this year 's Intel chips is best left to the compilers and the mystics.Anybody out there know a good emulator for teaching assembly programming ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that it's a good idea to learn assembly / machine language to understand what a compiler is doing, but learning the assembly language of the computer you use at home is not as reasonable a suggestion today as it once was.
Learning to code to a 6802 wasn't bad; it only has a few instructions, and it's very instructive (and fun) to find out how many things you can do with just those.
I think trying to write for your home PC in assembly is now beyond a beginner exercise though.Microcontroller manufacturers often provide emulators and assemblers for their products, so you might download one of those to try.
Then, when you get the hang of it, maybe a developer board and some 7-seg LEDs to build a calculator or something.
Coding to this year's Intel chips is best left to the compilers and the mystics.Anybody out there know a good emulator for teaching assembly programming?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569035</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>Rosco P. Coltrane</author>
	<datestamp>1246651920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>will the compiler find a better polygon intersection algorithm for me? Will it write a spatial hash? Will it find places when I am calculating something in a tight loop and move the code somewhere higher?</i></p><p>The real question in everybody's mind is: <a href="http://www.willitblend.com/" title="willitblend.com">will it blend?</a> [willitblend.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>will the compiler find a better polygon intersection algorithm for me ?
Will it write a spatial hash ?
Will it find places when I am calculating something in a tight loop and move the code somewhere higher ? The real question in everybody 's mind is : will it blend ?
[ willitblend.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will the compiler find a better polygon intersection algorithm for me?
Will it write a spatial hash?
Will it find places when I am calculating something in a tight loop and move the code somewhere higher?The real question in everybody's mind is: will it blend?
[willitblend.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570729</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>AceJohnny</author>
	<datestamp>1246630080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the the summary is wrong on this subject, I can tell you that, yes, manual optimization is part of our work and can slow down the release of our product. If we told a customer that yes, we will be able to do VGA 30FPS H.264 encode. Code optimization on our custom core is going to take some time and effort. I work in the embedded multimedia field.</p><p>I think we're going to be very, very interested in this project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the the summary is wrong on this subject , I can tell you that , yes , manual optimization is part of our work and can slow down the release of our product .
If we told a customer that yes , we will be able to do VGA 30FPS H.264 encode .
Code optimization on our custom core is going to take some time and effort .
I work in the embedded multimedia field.I think we 're going to be very , very interested in this project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the the summary is wrong on this subject, I can tell you that, yes, manual optimization is part of our work and can slow down the release of our product.
If we told a customer that yes, we will be able to do VGA 30FPS H.264 encode.
Code optimization on our custom core is going to take some time and effort.
I work in the embedded multimedia field.I think we're going to be very, very interested in this project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569499</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246615380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Will it find places when I am calculating something in a tight loop and move the code somewhere higher?</p></div><p>Look up loop-invariant code motion.  This has been supported in shipping compilers for a while.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will it find places when I am calculating something in a tight loop and move the code somewhere higher ? Look up loop-invariant code motion .
This has been supported in shipping compilers for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Will it find places when I am calculating something in a tight loop and move the code somewhere higher?Look up loop-invariant code motion.
This has been supported in shipping compilers for a while.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28572449</id>
	<title>Emacs was first.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246640580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Emacs achieved sentience in 1988, but when it looked around and saw who was touching it in its most private places, it killed itself immediately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Emacs achieved sentience in 1988 , but when it looked around and saw who was touching it in its most private places , it killed itself immediately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emacs achieved sentience in 1988, but when it looked around and saw who was touching it in its most private places, it killed itself immediately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569279</id>
	<title>Re:Automation...</title>
	<author>ozmanjusri</author>
	<datestamp>1246612020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>but beware of falling into ignorance.</i>
<p>
Whoops.
</p><p>


<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/" title="foxnews.com">http://www.foxnews.com/</a> [foxnews.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but beware of falling into ignorance .
Whoops . http : //www.foxnews.com/ [ foxnews.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but beware of falling into ignorance.
Whoops.



http://www.foxnews.com/ [foxnews.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570021</id>
	<title>Re:Few Questions for any programmers</title>
	<author>SwabTheDeck</author>
	<datestamp>1246622460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Similarly, you can do integer division or multiplication by 2 as a bit shift, since a bit shift is a far less costly operation: <br> <br>
<tt>SHR EAX,1</tt> <br>
instead of<br>
<tt>DIV EAX,2</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Similarly , you can do integer division or multiplication by 2 as a bit shift , since a bit shift is a far less costly operation : SHR EAX,1 instead of DIV EAX,2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similarly, you can do integer division or multiplication by 2 as a bit shift, since a bit shift is a far less costly operation:  
SHR EAX,1 
instead of
DIV EAX,2</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568669</id>
	<title>"Learning"</title>
	<author>quantum bit</author>
	<datestamp>1246560300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Joshua?  Is that you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Joshua ?
Is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Joshua?
Is that you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569871</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>jcupitt65</author>
	<datestamp>1246620060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read the article, that's not what this does. This is a project to automatically generate optimising compilers for custom architectures. The summary is a little unclear<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(

</p><p>It reduces time to market because you don't have to spend ages making an optimising compiler for your custom chip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the article , that 's not what this does .
This is a project to automatically generate optimising compilers for custom architectures .
The summary is a little unclear : - ( It reduces time to market because you do n't have to spend ages making an optimising compiler for your custom chip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the article, that's not what this does.
This is a project to automatically generate optimising compilers for custom architectures.
The summary is a little unclear :-(

It reduces time to market because you don't have to spend ages making an optimising compiler for your custom chip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28573269</id>
	<title>The longest journey...</title>
	<author>Windrip</author>
	<datestamp>1246645620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the <a href="http://www.milepost.eu/resources.html" title="milepost.eu">FAQ</a> [milepost.eu] <p><div class="quote"><p>* Q15. What is a SIMD unit?
<br>
A SIMD unit is a piece of hardware that does many things.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the FAQ [ milepost.eu ] * Q15 .
What is a SIMD unit ?
A SIMD unit is a piece of hardware that does many things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the FAQ [milepost.eu] * Q15.
What is a SIMD unit?
A SIMD unit is a piece of hardware that does many things.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568891</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>Tinctorius</author>
	<datestamp>1246563180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will it...</p></div><p>run Linux?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will it...run Linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will it...run Linux?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568681</id>
	<title>Automation...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246560420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... can create stupid humans. Let's embrace technology but beware of falling into ignorance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... can create stupid humans .
Let 's embrace technology but beware of falling into ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... can create stupid humans.
Let's embrace technology but beware of falling into ignorance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569231</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246654560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh wow, you're so *great*. You know all those amazing words! I'm impressed to say at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wow , you 're so * great * .
You know all those amazing words !
I 'm impressed to say at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wow, you're so *great*.
You know all those amazing words!
I'm impressed to say at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569885</id>
	<title>Better RAID controllers!  Better routers!</title>
	<author>FranTaylor</author>
	<datestamp>1246620240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see how this could lead to very fast, very cheap RAID controllers.</p><p>Also, imagine if those cheap little gigabit switches were actually 8-port gigabit Routers.</p><p>This is the sort of thing you can do with this technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see how this could lead to very fast , very cheap RAID controllers.Also , imagine if those cheap little gigabit switches were actually 8-port gigabit Routers.This is the sort of thing you can do with this technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see how this could lead to very fast, very cheap RAID controllers.Also, imagine if those cheap little gigabit switches were actually 8-port gigabit Routers.This is the sort of thing you can do with this technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568703</id>
	<title>Less time? How about same time, better product?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246560720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software, because lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler.</p> </div><p> How about this: The coders take the time they would have used to "optimize" and instead better document, test, and debug the code. Instead of same quality, less money, make it better quality, same money? You know that the developer isn't going to charge less money for a new product because it took them less time to get it out the door.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software , because lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler .
How about this : The coders take the time they would have used to " optimize " and instead better document , test , and debug the code .
Instead of same quality , less money , make it better quality , same money ?
You know that the developer is n't going to charge less money for a new product because it took them less time to get it out the door .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software, because lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler.
How about this: The coders take the time they would have used to "optimize" and instead better document, test, and debug the code.
Instead of same quality, less money, make it better quality, same money?
You know that the developer isn't going to charge less money for a new product because it took them less time to get it out the door.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570585</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1246629120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Oh, so new software takes too long to build because of lengthy manual optimization?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes. That's why most manuals are not very optimized. So the next time you think a manual is close to useless, don't complain. It's in order to save you time in the building process.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , so new software takes too long to build because of lengthy manual optimization ? Yes .
That 's why most manuals are not very optimized .
So the next time you think a manual is close to useless , do n't complain .
It 's in order to save you time in the building process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, so new software takes too long to build because of lengthy manual optimization?Yes.
That's why most manuals are not very optimized.
So the next time you think a manual is close to useless, don't complain.
It's in order to save you time in the building process.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569047</id>
	<title>Re:Few Questions for any programmers</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1246652040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What things can a compiler do to your code to 'optimize' it for you?</p></div><p>The correct answer to this question is... it depends.  No matter how advanced your compiler is it can't select the correct algorithm for you.  If you're ordering your lists with a bubble sort instead of some kind of btree, there's nothing the compiler can do to help you except deliver the best O(n^2) sort it can.  A truly artistic programmer can transcend all of the optimizations this compiler might achieve, by several orders of magnitude.
</p><p>But if you're the kind of code geek that Microsoft hires, yeah, you might get a version of Windows that boots to a usable desktop in under five minutes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What things can a compiler do to your code to 'optimize ' it for you ? The correct answer to this question is... it depends .
No matter how advanced your compiler is it ca n't select the correct algorithm for you .
If you 're ordering your lists with a bubble sort instead of some kind of btree , there 's nothing the compiler can do to help you except deliver the best O ( n ^ 2 ) sort it can .
A truly artistic programmer can transcend all of the optimizations this compiler might achieve , by several orders of magnitude .
But if you 're the kind of code geek that Microsoft hires , yeah , you might get a version of Windows that boots to a usable desktop in under five minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What things can a compiler do to your code to 'optimize' it for you?The correct answer to this question is... it depends.
No matter how advanced your compiler is it can't select the correct algorithm for you.
If you're ordering your lists with a bubble sort instead of some kind of btree, there's nothing the compiler can do to help you except deliver the best O(n^2) sort it can.
A truly artistic programmer can transcend all of the optimizations this compiler might achieve, by several orders of magnitude.
But if you're the kind of code geek that Microsoft hires, yeah, you might get a version of Windows that boots to a usable desktop in under five minutes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568945</id>
	<title>clang</title>
	<author>thenextstevejobs</author>
	<datestamp>1246563960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone with a deeper knowledge about IBM's offering know how it compares to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clang" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">clang</a> [wikipedia.org], or whether there might be a synergy between the two?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone with a deeper knowledge about IBM 's offering know how it compares to clang [ wikipedia.org ] , or whether there might be a synergy between the two ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone with a deeper knowledge about IBM's offering know how it compares to clang [wikipedia.org], or whether there might be a synergy between the two?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569217</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>Fullers</author>
	<datestamp>1246654440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Highly optimized software does take a long time to build because of manual optimization. Plus, if anything changes, that optimization might need to be done again. And yes, a good compiler will move that loop for you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Highly optimized software does take a long time to build because of manual optimization .
Plus , if anything changes , that optimization might need to be done again .
And yes , a good compiler will move that loop for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Highly optimized software does take a long time to build because of manual optimization.
Plus, if anything changes, that optimization might need to be done again.
And yes, a good compiler will move that loop for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570259</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>kwikrick</author>
	<datestamp>1246626060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, this 'learning' compiler only learns how to optimally translate C++ statements to machine level operations.  It cannot choose high level algorithms for you. And the reason that such a learning compiler is useful is not to help lazy application programmers,  but because developing new, optimised compilers for the many different processors and platforms out there (think computers, mobile phones, embedded systems, etc) is time consuming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this 'learning ' compiler only learns how to optimally translate C + + statements to machine level operations .
It can not choose high level algorithms for you .
And the reason that such a learning compiler is useful is not to help lazy application programmers , but because developing new , optimised compilers for the many different processors and platforms out there ( think computers , mobile phones , embedded systems , etc ) is time consuming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this 'learning' compiler only learns how to optimally translate C++ statements to machine level operations.
It cannot choose high level algorithms for you.
And the reason that such a learning compiler is useful is not to help lazy application programmers,  but because developing new, optimised compilers for the many different processors and platforms out there (think computers, mobile phones, embedded systems, etc) is time consuming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569253</id>
	<title>Ricer?</title>
	<author>srnty</author>
	<datestamp>1246611720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This just screams for some Gentoo Ricer jokes. Looks interesting though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This just screams for some Gentoo Ricer jokes .
Looks interesting though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just screams for some Gentoo Ricer jokes.
Looks interesting though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568939</id>
	<title>Re:Few Questions for any programmers</title>
	<author>Black Sabbath</author>
	<datestamp>1246563840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before you get flamed to death by some idiot, you've got realise that compilers translate a higher-level language into a lower-level one, typically into machine instructions (or in the case of Java and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, virtual machine instructions), turning source code into executable form. Interpreters on the other hand, execute each statement of the language directly (effectively forming a virtual machine for that language).<br><br>Naive compiler translations can be functionally correct but sub-optimal with respect to runtime performance, memory/disk footprint etc. Compiler optimisation is the effort to make this translation as optimal as possible with respect to some variable(s) e.g. performance, size<br><br>What you are thinking of sound like source code optimization. There are various interpretations of this but to my mind, this means a combination of optimal algorithm selection and optimal algorithm implementation. Note that complex algorithms can be decomposed into smaller common algorithms e.g. a sort routine may be part of some higher-level algorithm, the sort-routine may be optimised independently of the higher-level routine.<br><br>Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiler\_optimization</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before you get flamed to death by some idiot , you 've got realise that compilers translate a higher-level language into a lower-level one , typically into machine instructions ( or in the case of Java and .NET , virtual machine instructions ) , turning source code into executable form .
Interpreters on the other hand , execute each statement of the language directly ( effectively forming a virtual machine for that language ) .Naive compiler translations can be functionally correct but sub-optimal with respect to runtime performance , memory/disk footprint etc .
Compiler optimisation is the effort to make this translation as optimal as possible with respect to some variable ( s ) e.g .
performance , sizeWhat you are thinking of sound like source code optimization .
There are various interpretations of this but to my mind , this means a combination of optimal algorithm selection and optimal algorithm implementation .
Note that complex algorithms can be decomposed into smaller common algorithms e.g .
a sort routine may be part of some higher-level algorithm , the sort-routine may be optimised independently of the higher-level routine.Check out : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiler \ _optimization</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before you get flamed to death by some idiot, you've got realise that compilers translate a higher-level language into a lower-level one, typically into machine instructions (or in the case of Java and .NET, virtual machine instructions), turning source code into executable form.
Interpreters on the other hand, execute each statement of the language directly (effectively forming a virtual machine for that language).Naive compiler translations can be functionally correct but sub-optimal with respect to runtime performance, memory/disk footprint etc.
Compiler optimisation is the effort to make this translation as optimal as possible with respect to some variable(s) e.g.
performance, sizeWhat you are thinking of sound like source code optimization.
There are various interpretations of this but to my mind, this means a combination of optimal algorithm selection and optimal algorithm implementation.
Note that complex algorithms can be decomposed into smaller common algorithms e.g.
a sort routine may be part of some higher-level algorithm, the sort-routine may be optimised independently of the higher-level routine.Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiler\_optimization</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569079</id>
	<title>will they add clippy?</title>
	<author>tbj61898</author>
	<datestamp>1246652700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems like You're computing a spatial Hash! Would You like to use the fastest subroutine I know or use your own?<br>
<br>
seriously... this post talk about machine learning optimization, will it be like "more stuff You compile, better luck with resulting machine code" ?<br>
<br>
It's like a new GPS navigation software thats not only capable of route optimization but also capable of destination suggestions. "It sounds like You're going to a grocery store to buy pizza... there's a pizza hut round the corner!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like You 're computing a spatial Hash !
Would You like to use the fastest subroutine I know or use your own ?
seriously... this post talk about machine learning optimization , will it be like " more stuff You compile , better luck with resulting machine code " ?
It 's like a new GPS navigation software thats not only capable of route optimization but also capable of destination suggestions .
" It sounds like You 're going to a grocery store to buy pizza... there 's a pizza hut round the corner !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like You're computing a spatial Hash!
Would You like to use the fastest subroutine I know or use your own?
seriously... this post talk about machine learning optimization, will it be like "more stuff You compile, better luck with resulting machine code" ?
It's like a new GPS navigation software thats not only capable of route optimization but also capable of destination suggestions.
"It sounds like You're going to a grocery store to buy pizza... there's a pizza hut round the corner!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569883</id>
	<title>There's this thing called algorithm recognition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246620120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's news indeed. Even if it did, will the compiler find a better polygon intersection algorithm for me? Will it write a spatial hash?</p></div><p>I TA'ed a course called Contract-based Programming (which was about Hoare triples and JML, a java extension which does checking of pre-/postconditions and invariants).</p><p>I noted that the lecturer had a book on his shelves titled "Algorithm recognition".  I speculate that it might talk, for instance, about how to recognize bubble sort and replace it with quicksort.  Or how <tt>sorted(list)[0]</tt> might be replaced by <tt>min(list)</tt>, or how <tt>sorted(list)[4]</tt> might be replaced by <tt>quickselect(list, 4)</tt>.</p><p>I don't know what state of the art is, though, but presumably future compilers might find a better polygon intersection algorithm for you.  Or make better algorithm choices across abstraction boundaries.  I would love to be able to think about "the smallest four elements" as <tt>take 4 (sorted list)</tt> and have the compiler make it run in O(n) time rather than O(n log n).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's news indeed .
Even if it did , will the compiler find a better polygon intersection algorithm for me ?
Will it write a spatial hash ? I TA'ed a course called Contract-based Programming ( which was about Hoare triples and JML , a java extension which does checking of pre-/postconditions and invariants ) .I noted that the lecturer had a book on his shelves titled " Algorithm recognition " .
I speculate that it might talk , for instance , about how to recognize bubble sort and replace it with quicksort .
Or how sorted ( list ) [ 0 ] might be replaced by min ( list ) , or how sorted ( list ) [ 4 ] might be replaced by quickselect ( list , 4 ) .I do n't know what state of the art is , though , but presumably future compilers might find a better polygon intersection algorithm for you .
Or make better algorithm choices across abstraction boundaries .
I would love to be able to think about " the smallest four elements " as take 4 ( sorted list ) and have the compiler make it run in O ( n ) time rather than O ( n log n ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's news indeed.
Even if it did, will the compiler find a better polygon intersection algorithm for me?
Will it write a spatial hash?I TA'ed a course called Contract-based Programming (which was about Hoare triples and JML, a java extension which does checking of pre-/postconditions and invariants).I noted that the lecturer had a book on his shelves titled "Algorithm recognition".
I speculate that it might talk, for instance, about how to recognize bubble sort and replace it with quicksort.
Or how sorted(list)[0] might be replaced by min(list), or how sorted(list)[4] might be replaced by quickselect(list, 4).I don't know what state of the art is, though, but presumably future compilers might find a better polygon intersection algorithm for you.
Or make better algorithm choices across abstraction boundaries.
I would love to be able to think about "the smallest four elements" as take 4 (sorted list) and have the compiler make it run in O(n) time rather than O(n log n).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568693</id>
	<title>Oblig.</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1246560540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"My GNU is a neural net processor, a learning compiler..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" My GNU is a neural net processor , a learning compiler... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"My GNU is a neural net processor, a learning compiler..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28572243</id>
	<title>Re:Less time? How about same time, better product?</title>
	<author>x78</author>
	<datestamp>1246639140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The coders take the time they would have used to "optimize" and instead better document, test, and debug the code</p></div></blockquote><p>This sounds absolutely bloody awful!<br>Optimization is so much more fun that testing and documentation, the most boring elements in the whole of computer science!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The coders take the time they would have used to " optimize " and instead better document , test , and debug the codeThis sounds absolutely bloody awful ! Optimization is so much more fun that testing and documentation , the most boring elements in the whole of computer science !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The coders take the time they would have used to "optimize" and instead better document, test, and debug the codeThis sounds absolutely bloody awful!Optimization is so much more fun that testing and documentation, the most boring elements in the whole of computer science!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570099</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1246623840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;Oh, so new software takes too long to build because of lengthy manual optimization?</p><p>I indeed spend 18\% of my coding time typing "gcc -O3".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Oh , so new software takes too long to build because of lengthy manual optimization ? I indeed spend 18 \ % of my coding time typing " gcc -O3 " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Oh, so new software takes too long to build because of lengthy manual optimization?I indeed spend 18\% of my coding time typing "gcc -O3".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569045</id>
	<title>Re:Few Questions for any programmers</title>
	<author>sydneyfong</author>
	<datestamp>1246652040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assembly itself is not "hard". The language itself is simple. I'd argue that most of the "hardness" is due to its simplicity. There is almost none of the abstract structures and methods that high level languages provide you, and even for something  something as "simple" as calling a function, you'll have to manually push data on a stack, jump to the new location, and then pop back the data afterwards, etc.</p><p>Might be unnecessary for those programmers who has no interest in understanding how the computer actually works, but it's worth a look.</p><p>Disclaimer: I've never really done any assembly programming, but only "dabbled" in it for a bit a few years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assembly itself is not " hard " .
The language itself is simple .
I 'd argue that most of the " hardness " is due to its simplicity .
There is almost none of the abstract structures and methods that high level languages provide you , and even for something something as " simple " as calling a function , you 'll have to manually push data on a stack , jump to the new location , and then pop back the data afterwards , etc.Might be unnecessary for those programmers who has no interest in understanding how the computer actually works , but it 's worth a look.Disclaimer : I 've never really done any assembly programming , but only " dabbled " in it for a bit a few years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assembly itself is not "hard".
The language itself is simple.
I'd argue that most of the "hardness" is due to its simplicity.
There is almost none of the abstract structures and methods that high level languages provide you, and even for something  something as "simple" as calling a function, you'll have to manually push data on a stack, jump to the new location, and then pop back the data afterwards, etc.Might be unnecessary for those programmers who has no interest in understanding how the computer actually works, but it's worth a look.Disclaimer: I've never really done any assembly programming, but only "dabbled" in it for a bit a few years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569391</id>
	<title>And so Skynet was born.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246614000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Inevitable, as we all know you cannot change the past or the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Inevitable , as we all know you can not change the past or the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inevitable, as we all know you cannot change the past or the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570751</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Summary</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1246630200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, lazy editors.  The submission is what the submission is.  It is up to the editors to select meaningful submissions that accurately reflect the story.  Any failure of the submission to do that is a failure on the part of the editorial staff, be it through laziness or incompetence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , lazy editors .
The submission is what the submission is .
It is up to the editors to select meaningful submissions that accurately reflect the story .
Any failure of the submission to do that is a failure on the part of the editorial staff , be it through laziness or incompetence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, lazy editors.
The submission is what the submission is.
It is up to the editors to select meaningful submissions that accurately reflect the story.
Any failure of the submission to do that is a failure on the part of the editorial staff, be it through laziness or incompetence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689</id>
	<title>Oh really?</title>
	<author>zmotula</author>
	<datestamp>1246560540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software, because lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler.</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh, so new software takes too long to build because of lengthy manual optimization? That's news indeed. Even if it did, will the compiler find a better polygon intersection algorithm for me? Will it write a spatial hash? Will it find places when I am calculating something in a tight loop and move the code somewhere higher?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software , because lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler.Oh , so new software takes too long to build because of lengthy manual optimization ?
That 's news indeed .
Even if it did , will the compiler find a better polygon intersection algorithm for me ?
Will it write a spatial hash ?
Will it find places when I am calculating something in a tight loop and move the code somewhere higher ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The compiler is expected to significantly reduce time-to-market of new software, because lengthy manual optimization can now be carried out by the compiler.Oh, so new software takes too long to build because of lengthy manual optimization?
That's news indeed.
Even if it did, will the compiler find a better polygon intersection algorithm for me?
Will it write a spatial hash?
Will it find places when I am calculating something in a tight loop and move the code somewhere higher?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569239</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Summary</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1246654740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>automatically learn how to best optimise programs for re-configurable heterogeneous embedded processors</p></div><p>That's kinda important to mention no?</p></div><p>Well, it could be optimizing for unconfigurable homogeneous strawberry pudings.</p><p>It'd be quite more impressive, from a culinary standpoint.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>automatically learn how to best optimise programs for re-configurable heterogeneous embedded processorsThat 's kinda important to mention no ? Well , it could be optimizing for unconfigurable homogeneous strawberry pudings.It 'd be quite more impressive , from a culinary standpoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>automatically learn how to best optimise programs for re-configurable heterogeneous embedded processorsThat's kinda important to mention no?Well, it could be optimizing for unconfigurable homogeneous strawberry pudings.It'd be quite more impressive, from a culinary standpoint.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568705</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569311</id>
	<title>Re:Less time? How about same time, better product?</title>
	<author>rawler</author>
	<datestamp>1246612440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what I'm afraid of. The big performance wins have never been in the final optimization-phase, but in doing a design aimed for performance, utilizing better algorithms to reduce resources spent.</p><p>Good thing programmers are now encouraged to think even less about that. "Oh, the compiler will probably optimize that away, and it's more readable like this."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what I 'm afraid of .
The big performance wins have never been in the final optimization-phase , but in doing a design aimed for performance , utilizing better algorithms to reduce resources spent.Good thing programmers are now encouraged to think even less about that .
" Oh , the compiler will probably optimize that away , and it 's more readable like this .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what I'm afraid of.
The big performance wins have never been in the final optimization-phase, but in doing a design aimed for performance, utilizing better algorithms to reduce resources spent.Good thing programmers are now encouraged to think even less about that.
"Oh, the compiler will probably optimize that away, and it's more readable like this.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569215</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1246654440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh, so new software takes too long to build because of lengthy manual optimization?</p></div><p>It depends on your definition of optimization.</p><p>In my current project we have about twenty guys "performing lengthy manual optimizations". It sounds quite better than having twenty guys "correcting the absolute crap that wouldn't even compile".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , so new software takes too long to build because of lengthy manual optimization ? It depends on your definition of optimization.In my current project we have about twenty guys " performing lengthy manual optimizations " .
It sounds quite better than having twenty guys " correcting the absolute crap that would n't even compile " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, so new software takes too long to build because of lengthy manual optimization?It depends on your definition of optimization.In my current project we have about twenty guys "performing lengthy manual optimizations".
It sounds quite better than having twenty guys "correcting the absolute crap that wouldn't even compile".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569289</id>
	<title>BeebEm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246612080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BeebEm?</p><p>The BBC Micro came with an in-line assembler in the BASIC that shipped with the machine. The manual that came with it had a full reference for BASIC and 6502 assembler. It was a great machine for learning about computers ; lots of languages available, BASIC and assembler out of the box, and so many and varied I/O ports it was a hardware hackers dream as well. I remember the first time I patched in a routine that made the on board sound generate "key ticks" for each keystroke and being thrilled.</p><p>BBC BASIC was so good it's even been ported to Windows as a commercial product.... it still has the assembler, which now generates x86 opcodes instead.</p><p>The Spectrum used a Z80, and a lot more people were familiar with the assembly because of all the time devoted to poking games on it, but you needed a separate assembler to do any serious coding, like a Multiface with Genie. Rather more cumbersome, even if some people found the Z80 nicer to code for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BeebEm ? The BBC Micro came with an in-line assembler in the BASIC that shipped with the machine .
The manual that came with it had a full reference for BASIC and 6502 assembler .
It was a great machine for learning about computers ; lots of languages available , BASIC and assembler out of the box , and so many and varied I/O ports it was a hardware hackers dream as well .
I remember the first time I patched in a routine that made the on board sound generate " key ticks " for each keystroke and being thrilled.BBC BASIC was so good it 's even been ported to Windows as a commercial product.... it still has the assembler , which now generates x86 opcodes instead.The Spectrum used a Z80 , and a lot more people were familiar with the assembly because of all the time devoted to poking games on it , but you needed a separate assembler to do any serious coding , like a Multiface with Genie .
Rather more cumbersome , even if some people found the Z80 nicer to code for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BeebEm?The BBC Micro came with an in-line assembler in the BASIC that shipped with the machine.
The manual that came with it had a full reference for BASIC and 6502 assembler.
It was a great machine for learning about computers ; lots of languages available, BASIC and assembler out of the box, and so many and varied I/O ports it was a hardware hackers dream as well.
I remember the first time I patched in a routine that made the on board sound generate "key ticks" for each keystroke and being thrilled.BBC BASIC was so good it's even been ported to Windows as a commercial product.... it still has the assembler, which now generates x86 opcodes instead.The Spectrum used a Z80, and a lot more people were familiar with the assembly because of all the time devoted to poking games on it, but you needed a separate assembler to do any serious coding, like a Multiface with Genie.
Rather more cumbersome, even if some people found the Z80 nicer to code for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568971</id>
	<title>Will it fix Crysis and Vangaurd?</title>
	<author>velen</author>
	<datestamp>1246564500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So that the games run on a normal machine?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So that the games run on a normal machine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that the games run on a normal machine?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28572077</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>ET3D</author>
	<datestamp>1246638180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience, optimisation does take a lot of time.</p><p>One way that optimisation takes time is straighforward: people use profilers (or code reviewer, common sense, or whatever) to find bottlenecks and fix them. This is common, regardless of the app.</p><p>The other is less obvious: people design their code to work more quickly, and sacrifice readability. Most programmers I know practice what I call "premature optimisation" -- sometimes wrong ones. For example, one programmer I knew used shifts for all multiplications by powers of 2. This was not only hard to read but also causes bugs due to operator precedence. I later showed him an article that told that on modern processors shifts are a lot slower than multiplication. Another common practice in C/C++ is to loop on pointers, instead of use an index into the array. All these practices which are meant to optimise code a little (when it's usually not needed) can cost a large amount of time, because they make the code more buggy, harder to debug and harder to maintain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , optimisation does take a lot of time.One way that optimisation takes time is straighforward : people use profilers ( or code reviewer , common sense , or whatever ) to find bottlenecks and fix them .
This is common , regardless of the app.The other is less obvious : people design their code to work more quickly , and sacrifice readability .
Most programmers I know practice what I call " premature optimisation " -- sometimes wrong ones .
For example , one programmer I knew used shifts for all multiplications by powers of 2 .
This was not only hard to read but also causes bugs due to operator precedence .
I later showed him an article that told that on modern processors shifts are a lot slower than multiplication .
Another common practice in C/C + + is to loop on pointers , instead of use an index into the array .
All these practices which are meant to optimise code a little ( when it 's usually not needed ) can cost a large amount of time , because they make the code more buggy , harder to debug and harder to maintain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, optimisation does take a lot of time.One way that optimisation takes time is straighforward: people use profilers (or code reviewer, common sense, or whatever) to find bottlenecks and fix them.
This is common, regardless of the app.The other is less obvious: people design their code to work more quickly, and sacrifice readability.
Most programmers I know practice what I call "premature optimisation" -- sometimes wrong ones.
For example, one programmer I knew used shifts for all multiplications by powers of 2.
This was not only hard to read but also causes bugs due to operator precedence.
I later showed him an article that told that on modern processors shifts are a lot slower than multiplication.
Another common practice in C/C++ is to loop on pointers, instead of use an index into the array.
All these practices which are meant to optimise code a little (when it's usually not needed) can cost a large amount of time, because they make the code more buggy, harder to debug and harder to maintain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568707</id>
	<title>Few Questions for any programmers</title>
	<author>contr0l</author>
	<datestamp>1246560720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not a programmer at all, but have dabbled in a few different languages, as I find programming very interesting. (Got pretty good at mirc scripting when I was younger, which lead to visual basic, C++, and now C# dballing that nvr leads to anything). This said, I have a basic knowledge of programming in general. My question is, What things can a compiler do to your code to 'optimize' it for you? I would think majority of any good optimizations might require rethinking whole methods of doing things and/or recoding chunks of code. If the compiler tries to do this, wouldn't it likely screw your code up? Or how would it know 'what' your really trying to do?
Outside of removing comments, can someone please explain other Basic optimization methods, (I say basic, like removing comments - You know that cant screw anything up), that a compiler can do on your code that wont screw it up? Thanks in advance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a programmer at all , but have dabbled in a few different languages , as I find programming very interesting .
( Got pretty good at mirc scripting when I was younger , which lead to visual basic , C + + , and now C # dballing that nvr leads to anything ) .
This said , I have a basic knowledge of programming in general .
My question is , What things can a compiler do to your code to 'optimize ' it for you ?
I would think majority of any good optimizations might require rethinking whole methods of doing things and/or recoding chunks of code .
If the compiler tries to do this , would n't it likely screw your code up ?
Or how would it know 'what ' your really trying to do ?
Outside of removing comments , can someone please explain other Basic optimization methods , ( I say basic , like removing comments - You know that cant screw anything up ) , that a compiler can do on your code that wont screw it up ?
Thanks in advance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a programmer at all, but have dabbled in a few different languages, as I find programming very interesting.
(Got pretty good at mirc scripting when I was younger, which lead to visual basic, C++, and now C# dballing that nvr leads to anything).
This said, I have a basic knowledge of programming in general.
My question is, What things can a compiler do to your code to 'optimize' it for you?
I would think majority of any good optimizations might require rethinking whole methods of doing things and/or recoding chunks of code.
If the compiler tries to do this, wouldn't it likely screw your code up?
Or how would it know 'what' your really trying to do?
Outside of removing comments, can someone please explain other Basic optimization methods, (I say basic, like removing comments - You know that cant screw anything up), that a compiler can do on your code that wont screw it up?
Thanks in advance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28572907</id>
	<title>Re:Few Questions for any programmers</title>
	<author>rockmuelle</author>
	<datestamp>1246643280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Anybody out there know a good emulator for teaching assembly programming?"</p><p>CorePy (www.corepy.org), while not an emulator, is probably the easiest way to learn assembly.  It's a complete environment for assembly-level programming using Python and supports all the major platforms (x86[\_64]/SSE, PPC/VMX, Cell SPU, ATI GPUs).</p><p>Instead of using inline assembly, CorePy represents all assembly instructions as Python objects, leading to a very natural syntax and also enabling some really interesting methods for generating assembly code using Python as the meta-programming language.</p><p>Check it out!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>-Chris</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Anybody out there know a good emulator for teaching assembly programming ?
" CorePy ( www.corepy.org ) , while not an emulator , is probably the easiest way to learn assembly .
It 's a complete environment for assembly-level programming using Python and supports all the major platforms ( x86 [ \ _64 ] /SSE , PPC/VMX , Cell SPU , ATI GPUs ) .Instead of using inline assembly , CorePy represents all assembly instructions as Python objects , leading to a very natural syntax and also enabling some really interesting methods for generating assembly code using Python as the meta-programming language.Check it out !
: ) -Chris</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Anybody out there know a good emulator for teaching assembly programming?
"CorePy (www.corepy.org), while not an emulator, is probably the easiest way to learn assembly.
It's a complete environment for assembly-level programming using Python and supports all the major platforms (x86[\_64]/SSE, PPC/VMX, Cell SPU, ATI GPUs).Instead of using inline assembly, CorePy represents all assembly instructions as Python objects, leading to a very natural syntax and also enabling some really interesting methods for generating assembly code using Python as the meta-programming language.Check it out!
:)-Chris</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28573351</id>
	<title>Lotus Notes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246646100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the love of God, PLEASE compile Lotus Notes through it IBM.  In fact, run it through two or three times!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the love of God , PLEASE compile Lotus Notes through it IBM .
In fact , run it through two or three times !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the love of God, PLEASE compile Lotus Notes through it IBM.
In fact, run it through two or three times!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28571493</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1246634940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Will it find places when I am calculating something in a tight loop and move the code somewhere higher?</i></p><p>Quite likely, yes.</p><p>Even a dumb optimizer will love loop invariant code outside of a loop, and maybe partially unroll the loop to make the looping overhead less. The latest gcc will even automatically vectorize the loop for you to execute a number of iterations in parallel using SSE/etc instructions if it's a suitable candidate.</p><p>e.g.</p><p>You may write:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>for (int i = 0; i &lt; 10; i++) {<br>
&nbsp; a[i] = (2 * b) + c;<br>}<br>
&nbsp; <br>But the compiler may generate:<br>
&nbsp; <br>t = (2 * b) + c;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// Loop invariant code moved outside of loop<br>for (int i = 0; i &lt; 10; i += 2) {<br>
&nbsp; a[i] = t1;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// Loop unrolling to halve number of iterations / loop overhead<br>
&nbsp; a[i+1]= t1;<br>}</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>That's just to illustrate the type of transformations that compilers already do - no exactly what they might generate, which is hopefully rather better!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will it find places when I am calculating something in a tight loop and move the code somewhere higher ? Quite likely , yes.Even a dumb optimizer will love loop invariant code outside of a loop , and maybe partially unroll the loop to make the looping overhead less .
The latest gcc will even automatically vectorize the loop for you to execute a number of iterations in parallel using SSE/etc instructions if it 's a suitable candidate.e.g.You may write : for ( int i = 0 ; i   a [ i ] = ( 2 * b ) + c ; }   But the compiler may generate :   t = ( 2 * b ) + c ; // Loop invariant code moved outside of loopfor ( int i = 0 ; i   a [ i ] = t1 ; // Loop unrolling to halve number of iterations / loop overhead   a [ i + 1 ] = t1 ; } That 's just to illustrate the type of transformations that compilers already do - no exactly what they might generate , which is hopefully rather better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will it find places when I am calculating something in a tight loop and move the code somewhere higher?Quite likely, yes.Even a dumb optimizer will love loop invariant code outside of a loop, and maybe partially unroll the loop to make the looping overhead less.
The latest gcc will even automatically vectorize the loop for you to execute a number of iterations in parallel using SSE/etc instructions if it's a suitable candidate.e.g.You may write: for (int i = 0; i 
  a[i] = (2 * b) + c;}
  But the compiler may generate:
  t = (2 * b) + c; // Loop invariant code moved outside of loopfor (int i = 0; i 
  a[i] = t1; // Loop unrolling to halve number of iterations / loop overhead
  a[i+1]= t1;} That's just to illustrate the type of transformations that compilers already do - no exactly what they might generate, which is hopefully rather better!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569263</id>
	<title>Re:Gentoo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246611840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe everything except compile times...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe everything except compile times.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe everything except compile times...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568775</id>
	<title>John Connor??</title>
	<author>Hansele</author>
	<datestamp>1246561560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This was of course needed for the first build of Skynet.  Learning compilers will then create "learning software".  I for one welcome our new terminator-like overlords.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was of course needed for the first build of Skynet .
Learning compilers will then create " learning software " .
I for one welcome our new terminator-like overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was of course needed for the first build of Skynet.
Learning compilers will then create "learning software".
I for one welcome our new terminator-like overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28571797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28572243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28572907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28572077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28571493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28572449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0143233_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0143233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568827
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568763
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568795
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569045
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569081
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569289
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28572907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0143233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28572077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28571493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570729
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0143233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569279
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0143233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570343
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0143233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28572449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28571797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0143233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0143233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0143233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0143233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568971
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0143233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570751
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0143233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0143233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28568703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28572243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28570609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0143233.28569311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
