Saying things akin to "your compiler is bad" because it doesn't optimize stuff like this is a cop out.
For one: Most compilers for most languages are bad by that metric, and interpreters don't even get to play. So this is not helpful for the vast majority of people. Waiting around for them becoming good is not a viable option.
Second, say the compiler would perform good in this scenario. Cool, lets go up a notch, or two, and it would start performing bad again, because there are limits to what it can do in a reasonable amount of time.
And if that limit were big that maybe wouldn't matter, but the limit is low, and so it does. Real programs are so much more complex than this example, that even if the compiler got 10 times better, it would still fail to optimize large parts of your real program.
You are complaining about a format - with the stated goal to be very simple - not supporting some scientific usecase. What...? Use a different format then. That's not what this is trying to be. In fact, it's the exact opposite of what it's trying to be.
For one: Most compilers for most languages are bad by that metric, and interpreters don't even get to play. So this is not helpful for the vast majority of people. Waiting around for them becoming good is not a viable option.
Second, say the compiler would perform good in this scenario. Cool, lets go up a notch, or two, and it would start performing bad again, because there are limits to what it can do in a reasonable amount of time.
And if that limit were big that maybe wouldn't matter, but the limit is low, and so it does. Real programs are so much more complex than this example, that even if the compiler got 10 times better, it would still fail to optimize large parts of your real program.