4 ms·
It's not a big issue when you're working on the code continuously, thanks to the incremental compilation, but in general I'd always take slower compilation with
by RReverser 8y ago
It's not a big issue when you're working on the code continuously, thanks to the incremental compilation, but in general I'd always take slower compilation with more analysis (== lower risk of crashes and faster runtime) over faster compilation any time.
- Thaxll 8y agoDepends, I work on large C++ code base, compile times are really hurting productivity.
- IWeldMelons 8y agoYou may try precompiled headers
- stouset 8y agoIt's important to keep in mind that there is always going to be a bottleneck on productivity. Sometimes that bottleneck is compilation speed, sometimes it's the language allowing unbounded growth in complexity, sometimes it's ecosystem immaturity, sometimes it's fixing bugs another language would have avoided, and sometimes it's a language's lack of expressivity. But there's always something. It's worth keeping in mind that in some other language or with some other library or using some other toolkit, you'll still wind up with a bottleneck. It'll just be a different one (and maybe a worse one).
- saghm 8y agoDoes C++ have a "lower risk of crashes" as GP said though?
- freedomben 8y agoWhen I worked on a large C++/Qt code base compile times were awful. We ended up setting up distcc and that helped immensely. Worth looking into.
- pjmlp 8y agoRight now Rust compile times are still slower than C++, when doing "make all", as everything is always compiled from scratch and crate binaries aren't shared across projects. Delphi/Ada/D/.NET Native like compile times are still on the horizon.