3 ms·
This ethos played out in the C++ community 5-ish years ago. It turned into a compiler with quadratic behavior, and eventually many people who didn't care at al
by pclmulqdq 4y ago
This ethos played out in the C++ community 5-ish years ago. It turned into a compiler with quadratic behavior, and eventually many people who didn't care at all about compiler performance cared a lot.
It turns out that compiler speed makes development faster, keeps people interested in the language, and ultimately allows more iterations before release (which can be better for speed and safety than throwing in a bunch of extra compile steps).
- gnull 4y agoYou misread my comment. I didn't say it was useless, I said there are things with higher priority. And well… unlike Rust, C++ sucked at some of those things too, this I think makes them different. Rust offers a better trade-off between compilation time and other parameters, than C++.
- pclmulqdq 4y agoThey didn't say it was useless either; they also said it wasn't a high priority. Developer velocity and ergonomics should always be a high priority for compiler writers.
- gnull 4y ago"High" as in "higher than runtime speed, safety, abstractions, plugin system"? Where would you put it if you had to rank compilation speed with other criteria? And let's admit even though Rust compilation speed could use some improvement, it's not terrible.
- gnull 4y agoI re-read it. Yes, they're not saying it's useless, but then what are they objecting to?