We read the 1989 Self paper for #cs6120 today, and everybody wanted to talk about this sentence:

> Researchers seeking to improve performance should improve their compilers instead of compromising their languages.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/74877.74884

An efficient implementation of SELF a dynamically-typed object-oriented language based on prototypes | Conference proceedings on Object-oriented programming systems, languages and applications

ACM Conferences
It made me think about meeting Dave Ungar at the first SNAPL. He made it *real* clear that this was still an animating philosophy for him. To him, it was a moral issue: screw all these nitpicky, overbearing languages that squash creativity and subjugate humans to what the machine wants! Performance is our problem (PL/compiler people’s); it’s unseemly to foist it onto everyday programmers.
@adrian this is something Kent Dybvig always used to emphasize, too -- it's the compiler writer's job to suffer an arbitrary amount if it makes life even marginally easier for the programmer
@lindsey [growing dominoes meme]
smallest domino: “the greatest good for the greatest number”
largest domino: compiler writers do not deserve to be happy
@adrian @lindsey "Hey, what if that Omelas kid really just needs a decent test case reducer?"