/code-review in Claude Code spawns a lot of sub-agents (counted like 8 once), each looking at the code from some certain aspect (like correctness, maintainability, duplication, testing, etc). It eats tokens like crazy doing that, but also covers quite a lot. The default code review in Codex does far less (feels like it's only correctness) and doesn't uses subagents. Actually I made a skill for Codex that does a review closer to what Claude does by default, but using like 4-5 agents and some being cheaper models/less than xhigh reasoning. I'm getting pretty nice reviews with that that cover more than just correctness.
MSVC (Microsoft's C++ compiler) had an pretty advanced inter-procedural (LTO) way of doing devirtualization, but it was so buggy and slow that it eventually got disabled. It was trying to prove that a pointer can only target a certain class all the time (or maybe a couple), but things get really messy with typical C/C++ code and even worse once you have DLLs which may inject new derived classes.
Sadly for them, Nvidia didn't stay still in the meantime and created the next generation of CUDA, CuTile for Python and soon for C++, through CUDA Tile IR (using a similar compiler stack based on MLIR).
Event though it's not portable, it will likely have far greater usage than Mojo just by being heavely promoted by Nvidia, integrated in dev tools and working alongside existing CUDA code.
Tile IR was more likely a response to the threat of Triton rather than Mojo, at least from the pov of how easy is to write a decently performing LLM kernel.
Maybe OP was thinking about compilers "cracking" certain SPEC benchmarks: implementing exactly the optimization needed to boost a benchmark quite a lot, but that opt. probably won't apply to any other code out there (usually it's so targeted and risky with general C/C++ code that intentionally it doesn't work on anything else). That happened a couple of times over the years, I know about the Intel compiler cases for ex. I can certainly see LLM providers adding tricks that help a certain class of benchmarks, but doesn't help much for anything else.
They won't, Windows isn't even compiled with AVX2 extensions on, even though every CPU in the last 10y+ supports it, for the fear of it running on some machine that doesn't have AVX2. The whole "CPU unsupported" thing is from the marketing side, trying to push purchase of new hardware, not from the actual devs.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think the main reason the new Win11 apps like Notepad, File Explorer, Task Manager have a slow UI and the piece-by-piece drawing issues is because they combine UWP (the "new" tech) with the old Win32 controls, they are not a from-scratch rewrite. There seems to be some big overhead in using the two different UI frameworks together.
There was an attempt to make a Chrome OS competitor that had the entire UI rewritten in UWP, and when that got canceled it seems MS saved the new start menu + taskbar and bolted it on top of Win10, and for Explorer and other apps made this UWP+Win32 abomination. Actually when you profile Explorer you can also see DirectUI running, which is I believe another UI framework from the Office org. this time (maybe it's related to OneDrive).
Btw, apps written in C# using WPF can be surprisingly fast, so it's not really a problem of .NET managed vs. native apps. For ex. may favorite Git GUI (git-fork.com) is C#/WPF.
Thanks for the reply! I'm in WA, the moonlighting IP law seems very similar to CA. Both my contract and current HR guidance state that any invention is mine if done outside work hours, not using their hardware AND doesn't compete with the company and harms it's business interests - the vague part, especially with a company that has it's fingers in dozens of different software.
The app itself is similar to a module of a much larger product the company sells, but that product is far from being a money-maker for the company (may just break even). People are certainly not buying the whole product because of that module, it's a nice thing to have. There are several other companies that do sell stand-alone apps similar to mine though, there is a market for it.
The other concern was whether starting now the work based on the MIT open-sourced version of my app creates a clean slate for me, since the previous work was done in part during work hours on their PCs. Open-sourcing the app through my employer was the only way not to lose it completely in case I switch companies, and have a chance to try a startup based on it.
Some advice I've got was that forking the OSS version should be done by a friend (not in the company) and I should work on it in the background and officially join later, after I quit - that also feels sketchy.
How is performance compared to Graphviz?
There are some large compiler Control flow graphs with 500+ nodes where Graphviz really starts to take a long time to build a layout (dozens of seconds or worse). Profiling dot a bit, saw that most time was spent doing some DFS, and a lot of the data structs seem to be linked lists, the opposite of cache friendly.
The Ryzen 2700 is a very nice improvement over 1700, reaches higher frequencies and turbos better. The cooler that comes with the 2700x at least is very nice too and silent.
That is just Intel grabbing some attention from the Threadripper 32 core announcement. It doesn't run at 5Ghz, that was heavily overclocked using a custom cooling system hidden under the table.
Interesting for developers is the improvement in compiling Chrome, and also the big hit from the Meltdown/Spectre patches on Intel on the same benchmark.