5 ms·

> You can have both. It's okay if a fully optimized release mode binary takes a bit longer to compile, but compiling a few million lines of code for a debug bui

by zeusk 9y ago

> You can have both. It's okay if a fully optimized release mode binary takes a bit longer to compile, but compiling a few million lines of code for a debug build shouldn't take more than a second or two. > You can have both. Pretty bold claim, without proof.

gizmo 9y ago
It's not difficult to spit out machine code at a high pace. TCC is one example given by the grandparent, but it's certainly not the only fast compiler out there. Languages like Turbo Pascal were designed for rapid single-pass compilation, way back in the 80s. A million lines of code represents an AST with a few million nodes in it, which compiles to a binary of a few megabytes. To do this we have computers with a dozen cores running at 4ghz each, 100GB of memory and blazingly fast SSD drives. It's easy to forget, but computers themselves aren't slow. The software we write is just inefficient.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  What you are saying is that it is possible in theory, but no one has done it yet. So in some future were someone rewrites all C++ compilers to not be so slow then we won't need to compromise. Most C++ devs have to work with tools that currently exist and so we are stuck with what the compiler devs give us. Believe it or not C++ compiler devs are pretty smart people and have largely optimized it as much as possible without a language redesign. That language redesign is in the works with modules, but the dust hasn't settled yet, so that is also a discussion for the future. In the mean time no other language delivers the performance C++ does right now. So if I want to ship product right now the very real dilemma is fast product with slow builds (and a bunch of tools for dealing with that) with C++ or use some other language for a faster compiler and a slower product. Then there is Rust, but that is another whole can of worms and not in use in most shops yet (Just switching to something has a huge cost).
  - gizmo 9y ago
    C++ is a language that's incredibly hard to compile efficiently and incrementally, because it suffers from header file explosion (among other things) and as you mentioned it has no working module system. C compiles a _lot_ faster than C++, so that's always an option. And as other people have pointed out, you can get C++ code to compile much more quickly by being very disciplined about what features you use and how your code is laid out. So I agree that if you want to ship something right now all your options have significant downsides. I think software engineers as an industry don't take tooling nearly as seriously as they should. Tools are performance amplifiers and we currently waste a staggering number of manhours working with poorly designed, unreliable, poorly documented and agonizingly slow tools.
- msla 9y ago
  Tell me, how do you do mutual recursion in a single-pass define-before-use compiler?
  - jfoutz 9y ago
    Single pass generally means one crack at each compilation unit. it's ok to keep a list of unresolved forward references and go back and inject (fix-up) the address once it's known. I mean, that would still count as a single pass. If they're not in the same file, the linker does it.
  - ruste 9y ago
    Easy, stack trampoline (or skyscraper a la cheney on the m.t.a)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Dylan16807 9y ago
Are we speaking in a general sense here? Because the root of this is headers needing to be compiled with (almost) every use in C++. We could get rid of that while maintaining the same functionality. It's not a very bold claim unless there's a requirement of "no significant language changes"

by zeusk 9y ago

gizmo 9y ago

It's not difficult to spit out machine code at a high pace. TCC is one example given by the grandparent, but it's certainly not the only fast compiler out there. Languages like Turbo Pascal were designed for rapid single-pass compilation, way back in the 80s. A million lines of code represents an AST with a few million nodes in it, which compiles to a binary of a few megabytes. To do this we have computers with a dozen cores running at 4ghz each, 100GB of memory and blazingly fast SSD drives. It's easy to forget, but computers themselves aren't slow. The software we write is just inefficient.

sqeaky 9y ago
What you are saying is that it is possible in theory, but no one has done it yet. So in some future were someone rewrites all C++ compilers to not be so slow then we won't need to compromise. Most C++ devs have to work with tools that currently exist and so we are stuck with what the compiler devs give us. Believe it or not C++ compiler devs are pretty smart people and have largely optimized it as much as possible without a language redesign. That language redesign is in the works with modules, but the dust hasn't settled yet, so that is also a discussion for the future. In the mean time no other language delivers the performance C++ does right now. So if I want to ship product right now the very real dilemma is fast product with slow builds (and a bunch of tools for dealing with that) with C++ or use some other language for a faster compiler and a slower product. Then there is Rust, but that is another whole can of worms and not in use in most shops yet (Just switching to something has a huge cost).
- gizmo 9y ago
  C++ is a language that's incredibly hard to compile efficiently and incrementally, because it suffers from header file explosion (among other things) and as you mentioned it has no working module system. C compiles a _lot_ faster than C++, so that's always an option. And as other people have pointed out, you can get C++ code to compile much more quickly by being very disciplined about what features you use and how your code is laid out. So I agree that if you want to ship something right now all your options have significant downsides. I think software engineers as an industry don't take tooling nearly as seriously as they should. Tools are performance amplifiers and we currently waste a staggering number of manhours working with poorly designed, unreliable, poorly documented and agonizingly slow tools.
msla 9y ago
Tell me, how do you do mutual recursion in a single-pass define-before-use compiler?
- jfoutz 9y ago
  Single pass generally means one crack at each compilation unit. it's ok to keep a list of unresolved forward references and go back and inject (fix-up) the address once it's known. I mean, that would still count as a single pass. If they're not in the same file, the linker does it.
- ruste 9y ago
  Easy, stack trampoline (or skyscraper a la cheney on the m.t.a)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Dylan16807 9y ago

Are we speaking in a general sense here? Because the root of this is headers needing to be compiled with (almost) every use in C++. We could get rid of that while maintaining the same functionality. It's not a very bold claim unless there's a requirement of "no significant language changes"