3 ms·

Is rebuilding everything from scratch on every build actually that common? If use use docker’s —cache-from flag on build, then assuming you’ve already pushed an

by mcintyre1994 7y ago

Is rebuilding everything from scratch on every build actually that common? If use use docker’s —cache-from flag on build, then assuming you’ve already pushed an image if you don’t make any changes on the part of the code that image is for you’re not going to actually rebuild that. That part of your build is just docker pull, build using cache, no changes so no work.

bathtub365 7y ago
Incremental compilation isn’t the only point of the article
alkonaut 7y ago
I'd say for compiled languages it's probably the norm. (i.e. where builds take one huge source repository and produce one set of compiled binaries e.g. a desktop app). Depending on how clever the build system is, I have been burned by "build hygiene" in the past. Some would go so far as even nuking the source repository and cloning it again rather than updating or running "git clean" etc, to be absolutely sure that no a single byte was left from a previous build (Git is pretty good at this, but other version control systems not so much).
- iainmerrick 7y ago
  The norm is: - Use an incremental build during development - If you hit weird errors, try a clean build - Always use a clean build for releases Make is vulnerable to weird errors, as are newer systems like Gradle. Better build systems work hard to be 100% correct. Bazel is the best example I've seen. I'd say working with an extremely reliable build system is just as eye-opening as working with a good live coding system. If you never have to do a clean build, and the incremental build is fast, that's most of the benefits of live coding right there.
  - alkonaut 7y ago
    Incremental where you need to stop and restart running is still much slower than hot-edits (as in editing a dynamic/script language file) or hot-reloading statically compiled as C#). So clean build, incremental build+restart, incremental build while running I think is the 3 levels. I wonder if what the article is on about wrt. smalltalk is the last one.
    - iainmerrick 7y ago
      That sounds about right. You could maybe distinguish between "incremental build while running" and "no build, just interpret the code directly". But I don't think there's a major difference between those in practice, it's all just a question of how quickly code edits are picked up.

bathtub365 7y ago

Incremental compilation isn’t the only point of the article

alkonaut 7y ago

I'd say for compiled languages it's probably the norm. (i.e. where builds take one huge source repository and produce one set of compiled binaries e.g. a desktop app). Depending on how clever the build system is, I have been burned by "build hygiene" in the past. Some would go so far as even nuking the source repository and cloning it again rather than updating or running "git clean" etc, to be absolutely sure that no a single byte was left from a previous build (Git is pretty good at this, but other version control systems not so much).

iainmerrick 7y ago
The norm is: - Use an incremental build during development - If you hit weird errors, try a clean build - Always use a clean build for releases Make is vulnerable to weird errors, as are newer systems like Gradle. Better build systems work hard to be 100% correct. Bazel is the best example I've seen. I'd say working with an extremely reliable build system is just as eye-opening as working with a good live coding system. If you never have to do a clean build, and the incremental build is fast, that's most of the benefits of live coding right there.
- alkonaut 7y ago
  Incremental where you need to stop and restart running is still much slower than hot-edits (as in editing a dynamic/script language file) or hot-reloading statically compiled as C#). So clean build, incremental build+restart, incremental build while running I think is the 3 levels. I wonder if what the article is on about wrt. smalltalk is the last one.
  - iainmerrick 7y ago
    That sounds about right. You could maybe distinguish between "incremental build while running" and "no build, just interpret the code directly". But I don't think there's a major difference between those in practice, it's all just a question of how quickly code edits are picked up.