How can we make it easier to experiment with the compiler

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Tuesday, 25 May 2021 at 08:32:46 UTC, sighoya wrote:
> You can't encode the full semantic into one function name with 
> parameter names without to over blow these names.

We can assume that the reader has read a book on compiler design 
and is familiar with the terminology and the most common 
algorithms. Provide a reference to wikipedia if unsure if the 
reader is with you...

Functions that are only called from a few places can have long 
descriptive names, that is not a negative.

> However, small comments inside the function would also be 
> beneficial.

Yes, obviously. But adding 6 lines of comments for every trivial 
function is not helpful. It is a useless policy. It is a policy 
for the sake of having a policy.

If time is invested in documenting things that should be 
changed... then change becomes less likely: "look, the 
documentation is over there, change not needed".

Anyway, documentation is the wrong solution to structural issues. 
It does not enable anything.

It is kinda like saying a city does not read roadsigns because 
there is a good map available. Or that a city that is a labyrinth 
of one-way streets are easy to navigate with the right kind of 
map. Driving while looking at a map is not a good experience. And 
when things change, can you then trust the map?

*shrug*