Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> In my opinion? Yes, slower compilers that make code easier to write are
> better. I don't spend lots of time compiling, I spend it writing code.
> And I don't need to babysit the compiler, it goes off and does its thing.
>
> Performance is only important in the end result. I'm not saying I want
> my compiler to be slow, but I want it to be accurate and useful more
> than I want it to be quick. In this case, there is a quick and fully
> accurate solution, so it doesn't matter. But, for instance, if the
> compiler could do a full analysis to check if variables escape their
> scope, and that makes the compiler 5x slower, then I'd rather have the
> compiler verify my work instead of quickly producing memory-corrupting
> code.
>
This is why there are static verification tools. I'm all in favor
of this kind of tools, but I don't want to have to put up with their
slowness every time I compile something. Having a quick
write-compile-test cycle is very important IMO. Then when I have a
rough outline of the program, I can run another tool (or adding a
command line option) to enable extra checking (and then it doesn't
matter if the tool takes the whole night to run and I get the
results the next morning when I get to work).
Jerome
--
mailto:jeber...@free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeber...@jabber.fr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
