191–200 of 509 posts
Full disclosure: I work for Google on Chrome. A Chrome build is truly a computational load to be reckoned with. Without the distributed build, a from-scratch build of Chrome will take at least 30 minutes on a Macbook Pro--maybe an hour(!). TBH I don't remember toughing out a full build without resorting to goma. Even on a hefty workstation, a full build is a go-for-lunch kind of interruption. It will absolutely own a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Damn, are we doing this wrong? Yes: Not isolating different modules sufficiently to allow you to avoid including most headers when compiling most modules. Patterns to do this in C++ has been well understood for two decades: Strict separation of concerns coupled with facades at the boundaries that let all the implementation details of the modules remain hidden. Yes, it has a cost: You're incurring extra call overhea…
Unfortunately that's not feasible for highly performance-sensitive projects like browsers or games.
If a few hundred or few thousand people each have to build Chrome from scratch a couple times, and making their compilation process much slower makes each of a trillion pageviews a millisecond faster...the break-even point seems to be about a 27 hour build time sacrifice.
Full disclosure: I work for Google on Chrome. A Chrome build is truly a computational load to be reckoned with. Without the distributed build, a from-scratch build of Chrome will take at least 30 minutes on a Macbook Pro--maybe an hour(!). TBH I don't remember toughing out a full build without resorting to goma. Even on a hefty workstation, a full build is a go-for-lunch kind of interruption. It will absolutely own a…
> Damn, are we doing this wrong? Yes, and I mean "we" as in "this industry". I just recently talked to someone whose Swift framework(s) were compiling at roughly 16 lines per second. Spurred on by Jonathan Blow's musings on compile times for Jai[1], I started tinkering with tcc a little. It compiled a generated 200KLOC file (lots of small functions) in around 200 ms. Then there are Smalltalk and Lisp systems that are…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rust's compile times are even worse.
That's only because they just started working on incremental compilation, it will get faster soon enough.
Full disclosure: I work for Google on Chrome. A Chrome build is truly a computational load to be reckoned with. Without the distributed build, a from-scratch build of Chrome will take at least 30 minutes on a Macbook Pro--maybe an hour(!). TBH I don't remember toughing out a full build without resorting to goma. Even on a hefty workstation, a full build is a go-for-lunch kind of interruption. It will absolutely own a…
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch04s02.html#com...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go is a good example of a language with fast compilation times. Of course, the optimizer needs improvements, but I believe they keep managing to make it faster as they improve the output rather than slower.
Wasn't that Wirth's rule for Oberon and/or Pascal? Any optimization introduced has to have sufficient cost vs. benefit ratio that it makes the compiler faster compiling itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Concatenated" builds seem to be the best band-aid for this. Concatenate as many source files as possible before compiling, #include a bunch of cpp files into one big file. It makes tracking down errors slightly harder and macros a bit more risky, but greatly improves the overall build efficiency.
And trashes incremental compilation time, which is what really matters.
Full disclosure: I work for Google on Chrome. A Chrome build is truly a computational load to be reckoned with. Without the distributed build, a from-scratch build of Chrome will take at least 30 minutes on a Macbook Pro--maybe an hour(!). TBH I don't remember toughing out a full build without resorting to goma. Even on a hefty workstation, a full build is a go-for-lunch kind of interruption. It will absolutely own a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
7 is the best
Regardless of how many windows/any other OS versions I use later on, I will remember Win7 fondly. Its just so.. less cumbersome. May be the drastic changes that went into its preceeding and succeeding versions have a role to play in this.
The same could be said about Windows 7, I guess. ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's only because they just started working on incremental compilation, it will get faster soon enough.
I've heard the same thing a year ago. It didn't happen. See this 2016 roadmap from August 2015 for example: https://blog.rust-lang.org/2015/08/14/Next-year.html