On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 15:16:34 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 12/20/2016 11:32 PM, Joakim wrote:
(...)
I don't know how to make matters much clearer than the current
document. Any suggestions are welcome. The section "Workaround:
Are Local Imports Good Enough?" discusses the material cost in
terms of extra files that need to be opened and parsed (some
unnecessarily) in order to complete a compilation. The
"Rationale" part of the document discusses the costs in terms
of maintainability, clarity, and documentation.
Thanks,
Andrei
Stipulation: I think the difference of opinion may be caused by
working on different sizes of projects in ones career (tens of
thousands vs millions of LoC).
Suggestion 1: Maybe the DIP should point out that the cost of
redundant imports (however small) tends to grow quadratically
with code size (size of import tree times the number of
compilations).
If this is not the case then maybe the DIP is really in the wrong
direction.
Suggestion 2:
Implement the DIP, autogenerate millions of lines of D code (2
versions: with and without DCDs) and see which version of DMD
compiles them faster. This may also expose other ways to improve
scalability without implementing this DIP.
