Recompiling D code

[John Colvin via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Thursday, 14 August 2014 at 12:56:10 UTC, Rikki Cattermole 
wrote:
> On 15/08/2014 12:47 a.m., Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
>> On Thursday, 14 August 2014 at 11:54:57 UTC, Rikki Cattermole 
>> wrote:
>>> Atleast from my experience with this, its dmd thats actually 
>>> taking
>>> the time.
>>
>> I can't glean this from looking at the code, but are you 
>> recompiling the
>> entire program? Web development is a perfect fit for 
>> incremental
>> compilation, so when changing one web page's template or view 
>> code, you
>> should need to compile only one .d file.
>>
>> ld and gold seem to support incremental linking, that could 
>> help speed
>> things up as well.
>
> Dub automatically handles caching of dependencies such as 
> vibe-d. So they are not rebuilt.
>
> The only things that get recompiled for example is a single 
> code unit. This is defined as being the dependency between a 
> route file and template files (simplified).
>
> The necessary dependencies such as vibe-d then should be added 
> as part of the build process.
>
> Incremental builds of things such as routes and templates are 
> not a good idea. Same goes for data models. It could change the 
> code unit output a little too much. Possibly even cause a 
> corrupt binary from missing symbols ext.
>
> But in this case none of this matters much. Pretty much I'm 
> only testing against a single route module. No dependencies 
> outside phobos and vibe-d.

My experience with these sort of things suggests that it'll be 
the linker taking the time. Dynamic libraries are the solution.

Dub needs proper support for dynamic library dependencies.