On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 17:35:09 David Piepgrass wrote: > > I find it shocking that anyone would consider 15 seconds slow > > to compile for a > > large program. Yes, D's builds are lightning fast in general, > > and 15 seconds > > is probably a longer build, but calling 15 seconds > > "slow-to-compile" just > > about blows my mind. 15 seconds for a large program is _fast_. > > If anyone > > complains about a large program taking 15 seconds to build, > > then they're just > > plain spoiled or naive. I've dealt with _Java_ apps which took > > in the realm of > > 10 minutes to compile, let alone C++ apps which take _hours_ to > > compile. 15 > > seconds is a godsend. > > I agree with Andrej, 15 seconds *is* slow for a edit-compile-run > cycle, although it might be understandable when editing code that > uses a lot of CTFE and static foreach and reinstantiates > templates with a crapton of different arguments. > > I am neither spoiled nor naive to think it can be done in under > 15 seconds. Fully rebuilding all my C# code takes less than 10 > seconds (okay, not a big program, but several smaller programs).
Sure, smaller programs should should build quickly, and having build times get slower as the program grows can definitely be a problem. I'm not about to argue with that. But having a _large_ application build in 15 seconds is arguably a luxory. Large applications just aren't the sort of thing that builds quickly. But that's the sort of project that's usually commercial (either that or a major open source one), and I don't think that D's been used in that domain a lot yet. While D compiles far faster than C++, the kind of application which takes hours to compile in C++ and the one that takes 10+ seconds in D are on a completely different level in terms of amount of source code and the level of complexity, even if D _would_ probably only take minutes on a similar project instead of hours. - Jonathan M Davis