On 1/21/15 1:50 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:16:18PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
I honestly don't care whether std.algorithm is split or not.
The documentation needs to be split. But that can be done with the
future doc generator.
However, anything that furthers the reduction in cross-importing all
of phobos is good in my book.
I also think this is pasting over the real problem -- dmd consumes too
much memory.
[...]
Well, splitting std.algorithm is easier than fixing dmd's memory hogging
ways, I think. :-P
I think you misunderstand my note. I am ambivalent to splitting
std.algorithm. If it's split, fine, if not, fine too, I'm not objecting.
But I think if splitting will reduce the cross-importing, I DO want to
do that. I read that as one of the bonuses.
But splitting just for the sake of splitting, meh... :)
But yeah... something needs to be done about that.
It's downright painful to run dmd on my older work PC, which is an old
dual core pentium.
It's not just old PCs. I had to up my vmware linux image's memory from
1GB to 2GB just to compile the default vibe.d program. This is
unacceptable. I rent a VPS with minimum memory, and I have to compile
vibe.d locally because any compiling of it on that system will crash the
server.
Fast compilation is great to a point, but if your system can't even
compile, time taken goes to infinity. I think there has been too much
emphasis on dmd compilation speed.
-Steve
