From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: jmartin@cs.ucla.edu (Jay Martin) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1997/01/15 Message-ID: <5bj5dj$uhe@uni.library.ucla.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 210096382 references: <5bifbqINNgh3@maz4.sma.ch> organization: University of California, Los Angeles newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1997-01-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: lga@sma.ch (Laurent Gasser) writes: >In article , dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: >> Jay said >> >> "Here is an even more ignorant question: Why is compilation time still >> a driving factor? (excluding hardcore optimizations) Obviously it >> still is as I watched large systems compile lately. But wait, wasn't >> Turbo Pascal long ago seemly compile stuff faster on a 4.77MHz PC >> faster than VC++ on my P5-100. For fun I compiled old programs with >> vintage a Turbo Pascal Compiler and it seems to compile these suckers >> instantanously!" >> >> Yes, but the quality of code turned out by your "vintage Turbo pascal >> compiler" is truly horrible. >[ sound arguments about global optimization and inlining deleted ] >I am no more sure about the fact for Turbo Pascal. But it may had used >the same strategy than Think Pascal on Mac (once a Lightspeed product, >still sold by Symantech today, a record sale life span). The compilation >was extra speedy because the syntax tree building was embodied in the editor. >While you typed down the source, the syntax was checked and the front >part of the compilation (decorated syntax tree) was done. Turbo Pascal was a normal compiler. Going back to the original question: I understand that a compiler can spend an practically infinite time optimizing, but when optimizations are disabled or restricted to the typical simple ones it still seems to me that compilers have not kept up with processor speeds. Its as if compilers are parallelling the code bloat practices of other software areas, eating processor cycles as they come available. Suppose optimizations give a factor of 2X-3X, why would I bother turning on the time consuming optimizations early in a project needing a rapid development cycle? (Though optimized builds could be continiously be built as a background task) Jay