From: vesa_karvonen (vesa_karvonen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-06 10:53:13
--- In boost_at_y..., "Brey, Edward D" <EdwardDBrey_at_e...> wrote:
>> From: vesa_karvonen [mailto:vesa_karvonen_at_h...]
>>This is one of the things that I have been trying to tell people
>>about. It really doesn't matter whether it takes 1 or 10 seconds to
>>compile. The problem is when compiling time gets to the minute
>>range. When that happens your productivity drops sharply. You start
>>spending time thinking about how to avoid compiling.
> Ten seconds times fifty compilations brings you to far more than a
The difference is that each short compile/test cycle gives you the
affirmation that you need: the code you just typed was correct.
Even after having written C++ for many years, I still make silly
little typos and bugs. I don't want to spend an hour recompiling
after each time I correct a trivial typo or a bug. The compiler is
infinitely better at checking grammar than I am. It would be useless
waste of intellectual energy to painstakingly check every bit of code
I quickly type in. Now I can just compile and then jump to the exact
spot where I made the mistake. I often recompile every few seconds. I
find this style of programming much more effective than compiling
only after completing a major piece of functionality. Nearly
instantaneous feedback is *the key* to higher productivity and faster
Try it, you'll love it!
> Keep in mind that the files in question here are headers for the C++
> standard library and for boost libraries. Do you really expect or
> desire to be changing them?
Even Boost headers actually do change quite frequently. Putting
<boost> into a pch is not necessarily only a good idea. I prefer to
stay current with the libraries I'm using.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk