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:
- New tech releases
- Major tech changes
- Major milestones for tech
- Major tech news such as data breaches, discontinuation
Things that don't fit
- Minor app updates
- Government legislation
- Company news
- Opinion pieces
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
I am thinking of development.
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.
Any single file should not be so large it takes a long time to compile by itself.
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.
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?)