Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:57:34 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 08/20/2010 04:48 PM, retard wrote: >>> I've tried eclipse with the fancy stuff off, and it's still slower >>> than C::B or PN2 for me. >> >> Of course it is. You're comparing apples and oranges. The core of >> Eclipse is much more customizable. > > I've seen a live demo by Erich Gamma in which he wrote a simple Eclipse > plugin inside Eclipse and then he immediately used it. It was pretty > darn impressive. > > Today's compiler technology still has us pay for customizability even > when it's not realized, so even with all plugins turned off a pluggable > program would still be slower than a monolithic one.
Indeed. But even if it (static compilation) allowed controlling the customizability in every possible way, there can't be a single binary that suits everyone. Programs like C::B force you to choose these features on compile time. This is very typical in C/C++ applications - you have the choice, but it has to be done as early as possible. For instance, I forgot to compile in mp3 support when building ffmpeg or some other multimedia lib. Now the only choice I have is to recompile the library and possibly even all dependencies. It's the same thing in some Linux distributions - they forgot to set on the Truetype bytecode interpreter so I need to recompile some core libraries. Eclipse's philosophy seems to be completely different - some of the choices are made on launching the application, others when starting individual components. The only limitation that comes to mind is that because of SWT, Eclipse needs two distributions (32-bit and 64-bit), at least on Linux. Swing using applications don't have this limitation.
