> When I started out in the compiler business in the 80s many commercial compilers were originally written by one person. A very good person who dedicated himself (I have never heard of a woman doing this)<p>Grace Hopper?
I am not sure I totally get the author's point. Many commercial compilers had already implemented and shipped many of the optimizations later found in GCC before GCC did, although these compilers were often for a different class of machine than the average desktop Linux PC.<p>Is he saying that GCC implemented them just as they became viable on lower end hardware?
The author is generally right. But it's not unique to compilers. Many things were often written by just one person in the early days, but rarely so now. PC and console games, for example, were often written by one person. Now of course there are huge studios that do it (although mobile games can now be written by one person).<p>Programs have seen an explosion in feature set. For compilers this feature set includes optimzation, and additionally things like AutoComplete/IntelliSense, debug information, precompiled headers, etc...<p>With that said optimization probably dominates, in terms of headcount, what most compiler devs work on.
Interesting. Seems like a rare instance of increased computing power hurting individual programmer productivity.<p>Then again increased computing power in general enables more complex software with more specializes software. I have heard that Safari is the product of a very small team, but that's the exception.
It's also no longer the case that a single person can build a commercially competitive automobile or airplane. Even ignoring all the relevant regulations, most people buying those things expect features like anti-lock breaking and navigation systems and wings that are not made out of canvas stretched across cunningly-bent pieces of wood.<p>On the other hand, a modern kit car would make the young Karl Benz green with envy. A modern kit airplane would make the Wright brothers... well, they were pretty emotionally reserved, but I think I can safely say they would be intensely interested in every single aspect.<p>I think the main part he leaves out is that not only do we have better, more complex tools, we have better, more complex tools to build tools. The continuing expansion of expectations is only natural given our continuing expansion of capacity.