2 ms·
But it's adding an extra compilation step. The only way to will improve compile times is if it avoids the need to recompile all source files referring to header
by wizofaus 4y ago
But it's adding an extra compilation step. The only way to will improve compile times is if it avoids the need to recompile all source files referring to header that's only been modified to add/remove/modify private methods/data in a class (even data is an issue if objects of that class are instantiated on the stack). In principle it might be possible for an extra transpilation step to help there if you also take over the "make"-style dependency management. I'm guessing c++ modules is supposed to help address this too?
- 3836293648 4y agoThe idea is not adding a compilation step. This is a proof of concept and playground. If it works out it's not going to stay as a transpiler to Cpp1 forever
- wizofaus 4y agoSure but unless you exclusively use the new syntax (which should be slightly faster to parse, though I'm not sure what % of total compilation time that constitutes) it's still going to have to do at least the same amount of work, if not more (given there's now more that has to be inferred by the compiler, rather than specified explicitly). But from experience the main issue with c++ compliation time is when modifying header files.