5 ms·

This is not always true. Static linking with other language doesn't always have similar experience with Go. One of these is the compilation speed. With other la

by royge 9y ago

This is not always true. Static linking with other language doesn't always have similar experience with Go. One of these is the compilation speed. With other languages you'll still have time to get a coffee break before its done.:)

pjmlp 9y ago
Which other languages? Turbo Pascal compilation speed, in MS-DOS, using 90’s hardware was already faster than Go. There are lots of languages with modules support, with static linking and native compilation to choose from.
- royge 9y ago
  :D You're comparing turbo pascal with Go today? You're gonna write microservices and web applications with Turbo Pascal?
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    Ever heard of FreePascal and Delphi? In any case it doesn't change the fact that Go's compilation speed is nothing to brag about, it has been done before in many other languages, Turbo Pascal was just one example. If you wish I can provide other examples of languages that compile as fast, on such old hardware while matching Go's compilation speed, with richer language features.
    - royge 9y ago
      Yes, I heard about these FreePascal and Delphi but I have no prior experience with them.
  - seba_dos1 9y ago
    Well, personally I wouldn't, but generally, why not?
- gribbly 9y ago
  >Turbo Pascal compilation speed, in MS-DOS, using 90’s hardware was already faster than Go. What relevance does this have on the compiler landscape today ? If you have to use a compiler from ~30 years ago to find a comparison supporting your claim, it sounds very much like Go is indeed much faster than what it competes against today.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    The relevance is that a compiler running in 90's hardware is able to beat Go's compilation speeds of 2017. That same compiler has evolved through the years. If you want the 2017 version of it, it is called Delphi. Beats Go in language features and compilation speed. Go's compilation speed only surprises those developers that never used anything else beyond C and C++.
    - gribbly 9y ago
      >The relevance is that a compiler running in 90's hardware is able to beat Go's compilation speeds of 2017 And beat 99% of other compilers today, meaning that overall compiler complexity has grown. >If you want the 2017 version of it, it is called Delphi. Ok, this is something actually relevant. >Go's compilation speed only surprises those developers that never used anything else beyond C and C++. For me (tm), Go compilation speed has compared equal or favorably against C, C++, Java, C#, Rust at least.
      - pjmlp 9y ago
        > And beat 99% of other compilers today, meaning that overall compiler complexity has grown. Which ones? > For me (tm), Go compilation speed has compared equal or favorably against C, C++, Java, C#, Rust at least. Since when does Go compile faster than Java and C#? When I hit Ctrl+S my binary is already on the disk, thanks to incremental compiler integration on the IDE. I have a full blown WPF application with multiple plugins, including data visualization, talking to Oracle and Postgres, total compilation time after check out 12s. Eiffel, D, Nim, Jai are other fast compilation examples.

by royge 9y ago

pjmlp 9y ago

Which other languages? Turbo Pascal compilation speed, in MS-DOS, using 90’s hardware was already faster than Go. There are lots of languages with modules support, with static linking and native compilation to choose from.

royge 9y ago
:D You're comparing turbo pascal with Go today? You're gonna write microservices and web applications with Turbo Pascal?
- pjmlp 9y ago
  Ever heard of FreePascal and Delphi? In any case it doesn't change the fact that Go's compilation speed is nothing to brag about, it has been done before in many other languages, Turbo Pascal was just one example. If you wish I can provide other examples of languages that compile as fast, on such old hardware while matching Go's compilation speed, with richer language features.
  - royge 9y ago
    Yes, I heard about these FreePascal and Delphi but I have no prior experience with them.
- seba_dos1 9y ago
  Well, personally I wouldn't, but generally, why not?
gribbly 9y ago
>Turbo Pascal compilation speed, in MS-DOS, using 90’s hardware was already faster than Go. What relevance does this have on the compiler landscape today ? If you have to use a compiler from ~30 years ago to find a comparison supporting your claim, it sounds very much like Go is indeed much faster than what it competes against today.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  The relevance is that a compiler running in 90's hardware is able to beat Go's compilation speeds of 2017. That same compiler has evolved through the years. If you want the 2017 version of it, it is called Delphi. Beats Go in language features and compilation speed. Go's compilation speed only surprises those developers that never used anything else beyond C and C++.
  - gribbly 9y ago
    >The relevance is that a compiler running in 90's hardware is able to beat Go's compilation speeds of 2017 And beat 99% of other compilers today, meaning that overall compiler complexity has grown. >If you want the 2017 version of it, it is called Delphi. Ok, this is something actually relevant. >Go's compilation speed only surprises those developers that never used anything else beyond C and C++. For me (tm), Go compilation speed has compared equal or favorably against C, C++, Java, C#, Rust at least.
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      > And beat 99% of other compilers today, meaning that overall compiler complexity has grown. Which ones? > For me (tm), Go compilation speed has compared equal or favorably against C, C++, Java, C#, Rust at least. Since when does Go compile faster than Java and C#? When I hit Ctrl+S my binary is already on the disk, thanks to incremental compiler integration on the IDE. I have a full blown WPF application with multiple plugins, including data visualization, talking to Oracle and Postgres, total compilation time after check out 12s. Eiffel, D, Nim, Jai are other fast compilation examples.