The larger question of whether optimizations are hardware-dependent is interesting. In some sense, sure. But there are a lot of optimizations in modern compilers that apply equally well to the PDP-11 and to the AMD64; they're just not that different.
My homework assignment for you: write a C function of three or four lines which loops over an array of structs and does some computation for each one, including some conditional and a call to a one-line static function; compile it with -c -O0 -Wa,-adhlns=unoptimized.lst and with -c -O5 -fomit-frame-pointer -Wa,-adhlns=optimized.lst; list the optimizations you notice in the difference between unoptimized.lst, and hazard a guess at which of them are applicable on a PDP-11.
Compiler optimization be a harsh mistress.
On top of that it contains mostly information rather than mark-up and eye candy.
It can get exhausting keeping up with all of the silly CSS/JS web trends, I realize, but there is a good reason for a lot of it.
People who use CSS resets would be fine; people who use things like normalize.css might have to go get a new version; but the rest of the internet (which is implicitly relying on things like the line-height of <p>s and the padding of <body>) might just spontaneously combust.
That might be the way to go.
~/Library/Application Support/Firefox/Profiles/<random characters>.default/
~ $ cat heh.css
For those who don't want to go to the above effort to see the results: http://imgur.com/F1MHng3 http://imgur.com/jYly4fX
This is DMR's website. Good job criticizing a dead man on not "keeping up" or writing CSS so that you don't have to customize your default styles.
Not that they aren' confused between pointers and arrays now.
What is/was the purpose of the ospace() and waste() functions?
The "post" part is about who posted it to HN, not about who wrote the article.
I am not seeking any sort of recognition for the post whatsoever.