4 ms·

> > compilation time definitely IS an issue for us, > But is it due to 'single file libraries'? That's a fair point, they're generally not. I just meant that

> > compilation time definitely IS an issue for us, > But is it due to 'single file libraries'? That's a fair point, they're generally not. I just meant that if those libraries were single file, but otherwise unchanged, then the problem would only be worse. I see what you're saying about unity builds, but if you build your dependencies totally separately from the rest of your program then it's not so important exactly how fast they build. I'm imagining a situation where you leave vcpkg to build all your libraries overnight, then you spend the next few weeks iteratively working on your application code (which is how it usually works for us). > The reality is that unless you are using something fairly fundamental it will probably only need to be in one compilation unit in the first place. In the projects I work on, which are really quite varied, many (but not all) libraries are used throughout the codebase as vocabulary types. Again, I think this just comes down to very different codebases and uses of libraries for us.

CyberDildonics 6y ago
> libraries are used throughout the codebase as vocabulary types. Again, I think this just comes down to very different codebases and uses of libraries for us. I don't know what 'vocabulary types' are, but I think this is an oversimplification. My guess is that most big programs end up like yours but my point is that it doesn't have to be this way. Single file libraries are not the problem and can actually help, although the real issue is deeper. I think the problem is actually dependencies and many times single file libraries go to great lengths to not depend on anything else. To keep it as simple as possible, I think classes / data structures get over used and instead of just making an interface to some data, people stuff everything they are doing into some class they have. Transformations from one type to another put into data structures means that the class now has dependencies on those other types. If those types have transformations then they have dependencies and so on. The extrapolation is that everything depends on everything else and even compilation units that should be tiny end up pulling in large parts of the entire program as source code. Lots of compilation units can then mean compiling huge chunks of the source hundreds of times.

CyberDildonics 6y ago

> libraries are used throughout the codebase as vocabulary types. Again, I think this just comes down to very different codebases and uses of libraries for us. I don't know what 'vocabulary types' are, but I think this is an oversimplification. My guess is that most big programs end up like yours but my point is that it doesn't have to be this way. Single file libraries are not the problem and can actually help, although the real issue is deeper. I think the problem is actually dependencies and many times single file libraries go to great lengths to not depend on anything else. To keep it as simple as possible, I think classes / data structures get over used and instead of just making an interface to some data, people stuff everything they are doing into some class they have. Transformations from one type to another put into data structures means that the class now has dependencies on those other types. If those types have transformations then they have dependencies and so on. The extrapolation is that everything depends on everything else and even compilation units that should be tiny end up pulling in large parts of the entire program as source code. Lots of compilation units can then mean compiling huge chunks of the source hundreds of times.