On 6/3/15 10:19 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 June 2015 at 14:08:33 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 6/3/15 3:50 AM, Paulo Pinto wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 June 2015 at 07:05:37 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
Project size is irrelevant here. I had 500 line C++ project that took
10 minutes to compile (hello boost::spirit). It is impossible for C++
to compile faster than D by design. Any time it seems so you either
aren't comparing same thing or get misinformed. Or do straightforward
separate compilation.
Even C.
Our project, back when I was doing C in the early 2000's, a "make clean
all" took around one hour.
It might be possible the processor/RAM constraints were different in
2000 than they are now :)
Yeah, some people take 9 hours instead with C++ using modern hardware.
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/37n39g/john_carmack_shares_his_experiences_with_static/croml2i
If you noticed a later post from me, those systems were UNIX servers,
not desktop PCs.
Sure, but I still think it's difficult to compare systems. Processors
just weren't that fast back then. You could have 256 of them, and lots
of RAM, but the RAM architecture was slower too.
If your compiler could run in parallel to build, perhaps you could get
faster compile times, but it's so difficult to compare these things in
an apples-to-apples comparison. Especially when the size/complexity of
the program being compiled isn't necessarily analogous.
-Steve
