On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 21:05:12 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/7/12 11:26 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 19:33:22 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 7/7/12 8:29 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
Sure they complain, but they would complain harder if the generated
code
was sub-optimal or had bugs in it. And I imagine that multiple hour
build times are more the exception than rule even in C++, my
understanding is that all 50mloc of Windows can compile overnight
using
distributed compiling. Essentially, my argument is that for business
compilation time is something that can be attacked with money, where
code generation and perf bugs are not.
I'm sorry, but I think you got that precisely backwards.
Andrei
Why is that?
Compilation is a huge bottleneck for any major C++ code base, and adding
hardware (distributing compilation etc) is survival, but definitely
doesn't scale to make the problem negligible.
In contrast, programmers have considerable control about generating fast
code.
Andrei
So work around backend bugs and slowness? I could see that, but the most
widely used C++ compilers are based on GCC and LLVM and those have very
few backend problems to begin with. I still see pretty heinous backend
problems crop up in the bug reports for DMD.
As to compile speed, is LDC really *THAT* much slower than DMD so as to
cause C++ style speed issues? I thought one of the whole points of D is
that it doesn't need the epic numbers of passes and preprocessor that C++
does precisely because that's what slows down C++ so much...
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
