Splitting std.algorithm

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d]

On 1/21/15 1:50 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:16:18PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> [...]
>> I honestly don't care whether std.algorithm is split or not.
>>
>> The documentation needs to be split. But that can be done with the
>> future doc generator.
>>
>> However, anything that furthers the reduction in cross-importing all
>> of phobos is good in my book.
>>
>> I also think this is pasting over the real problem -- dmd consumes too
>> much memory.
> [...]
>
> Well, splitting std.algorithm is easier than fixing dmd's memory hogging
> ways, I think. :-P

I think you misunderstand my note. I am ambivalent to splitting 
std.algorithm. If it's split, fine, if not, fine too, I'm not objecting. 
But I think if splitting will reduce the cross-importing, I DO want to 
do that. I read that as one of the bonuses.

But splitting just for the sake of splitting, meh... :)

> But yeah... something needs to be done about that.
> It's downright painful to run dmd on my older work PC, which is an old
> dual core pentium.

It's not just old PCs. I had to up my vmware linux image's memory from 
1GB to 2GB just to compile the default vibe.d program. This is 
unacceptable. I rent a VPS with minimum memory, and I have to compile 
vibe.d locally because any compiling of it on that system will crash the 
server.

Fast compilation is great to a point, but if your system can't even 
compile, time taken goes to infinity. I think there has been too much 
emphasis on dmd compilation speed.

-Steve