tooling quality and some random rant

[gölgeliyele]

On 2/14/11 3:22 PM, retard wrote:
>
> Your obsession with fast compile times is incomprehensible. It doesn't
> have any relevance in the projects I'm talking about. On multicore 'make -
> jN', distcc&  low cost clusters, and incremental compilation already
> mitigate most of the issues. LLVM is also supposed to compile large
> projects faster than the 'legacy' gcc. There are also faster linkers than
> GNU ld. If you're really obsessed with compile times, there are far
> better languages such as D.
>
> The extensive optimizations and fast compile times have an inverse
> correlation. Of course your compiler compiles faster if it optimizes
> less. What's the point here?
>
> All your examples and stories are from 1980's and 1990's. Any idea how
> well dmc fares against latest Intel / Microsoft / GNU compilers?

I work on a >1M LOC C++ project and using distcc with 4 nodes and 
ccache. Unfortunately, it is not enough. Yes, there are various cases 
where runtime performance matters a lot. But compile time performance of 
C++ is a huge problem. I am glad that Walter cares about this.

The point about optimizations vs compile time seems to be a valid one. 
However, even without optimizations turned on gcc sucks big time w.r.t. 
compilation time. And most of the time is being spent in parsing 
gazillion number of headers. I did not have a chance to work with 
Intel's and MS's compilers.