this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
23 points (96.0% liked)

Tech

483 readers
1 users here now

A community for high quality news and discussion around technological advancements and changes

Things that fit:

Things that don't fit

Community Wiki

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
Vacant
23
AMD won Computex by extending AM5 support and launching new AM4 CPUs (www.xda-developers.com)
submitted 5 months ago by 0x0 to c/tech
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

...which is why i prefer AM for hardware longevity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

This ain't the '90s anymore; CPUs have been fast for a while now. If your mid-development partial compilation time isn't basically negligible with the CPUs we already have, your build script is probably fucked up or the module you're working on is way too large. You should rarely be working on something with such cross-cutting concerns that you legitimately need to recompile vast swathes of the codebase at once.

[–] Mihies 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

C'mon, faster compilation never hurts. It's not just build scripts - think of development where it eats plenty of seconds each time you start debugging.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I am thinking of development.

  1. In most cases, you should only need to recompile the particular file you're working on because interfaces should be changing a lot less frequently than implementations.

  2. Any single file should not be so large it takes a long time to compile by itself.

  3. If other files are getting recompiled anyway even though nothing about them actually changed, the dependency resolution in your Makefile (or whatever) is screwed up and you need to fix it.

Point is, routine long compilation times after a small change are a code smell. There's something wrong that a faster CPU will only mask, not fix.

[–] sus 1 points 5 months ago

you can often just slap compiler cache on a project and get a 20-150x speedup, but when the original compile time was 45 minutes, it's still slow enough to disrupt your workflow (though, I suspect you may be talking about some manual method that may be even faster. But are those really common enough where you would call the lack of it a code smell?)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I think it depends on what you’re working on. If you’re working on some JavaScript web app you could say that CPUs are “good enough”. But even then larger more complicated apps will get annoyingly slow to “compile”.

It’s when you are working with larger and more complicated Rust or C or whatever code bases that compile time matters.

This all being said for me CPU important is a good thing. It was good in the 90s and it’s good now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

But even then larger more complicated apps will get annoyingly slow to “compile”.

It’s when you are working with larger and more complicated Rust or C or whatever code bases that compile time matters.

If you are in the middle of doing a unit of work, iteratively making small changes to the code, compiling, and testing them, those compile times should be small too. If a small change in one file triggers your entire project to recompile, you fucked up the Makefile or structured the whole program poorly or something like that. There’s something wrong that a faster CPU will only mask, not fix.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Yep sure mate, have a go at an enterprise scale mobile app or. Net and then let's chat