awkward is which, backwards read things makes posting top but, ass an be to Not.
"Paulo Pinto" <pj...@progtools.org> wrote in message news:joku8g$1kd9$1...@digitalmars.com... > Well, in most the big C++ projects I was involved in the > past, a full clean build would take at least an hour. > > Am 12.05.2012 00:34, schrieb SomeDude: >> On Friday, 11 May 2012 at 21:46:55 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >>> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:op.wd5o86s3eav7ka@steves-laptop... >>> On Fri, 11 May 2012 13:47:05 -0400, Alex Rønne Petersen >>> <xtzgzo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Complicated language structure? Long compilation times? >>>> >>>> I can attest that on certain types of projects (i.e. template heavy), >>>> D's lightning fast compilation time goes out the window. It has >>>> improved greatly, but there are still some improvements that can be >>>> made. >>>> >>>> For instance, dcollections, which is about 10kloc takes 17 seconds to >>>> compile all the unit tests. It used to be well over a minute, till >>>> walter changed a linear lookup to a hash lookup on the symbol table. >>>> There's an outstanding issue which is similar still in bugzilla: >>> >>> Meh, that's still nothing compared to C++. The sample games included >>> with >>> Marmalade and the Marm-based IwGame engine take *serveral* minutes to >>> compile - and those are just sample programs! >>> >>> Template-heavy projects don't throw D's lightning fast compilation >>> times out >>> the window, it just makes them less lightning-like. It's still an >>> order of >>> magnature faster than equivalent, or even merely similar, C++. >> >> I remember g++ taking dozens of minutes on a SINGLE compilation unit on >> FreeFEM++, a very heavily templated project. Large C++ projects with >> lots of templates can take several hours to compile. So one has to be >> very careful with libraries like Boost on large projects, compilation >> times can explode. >