5 ms·

And that is a really old problem. I remember trying boost::phoenix about 10-15 years ago but it was completely unusable because even the hello-world-example to

And that is a really old problem. I remember trying boost::phoenix about 10-15 years ago but it was completely unusable because even the hello-world-example took like 10 seconds. Thats incompatible to my C++-workflow. Today I'm trying to port some big old Embarcadero (Borland) C++ projects to their new clang-compiler but the compile times are so terrible that I'm not sure this will be usable at all (and these projects are mostly C++98).

badsectoracula 8y ago
Well, it doesn't help that Borland focused on compiler performance (i have Borland C++ 5.0 and i use it for a lot of my C coding since i write in C89+a few extensions that are supported anyway, because it takes around a second for a full rebuild for my code and is practically instant for a partial build - and that is for a singlethreaded compiler, for comparison the same code takes 4 seconds on a parallel build in gcc with make -j8). I don't know of any other (non-toy) compiler that focused on that. 15-16 years ago i used the free BC5.5 command line tools exclusively because on the crappy computer i had at the time (Pentium MMX at 200MHz with 32MB of RAM) it was the only that was fast enough to work with. I've also played a lot with Borland C++ Builder and the compile times for C++ (pre-C++98) are comparable (that is, practically instant).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]