From: Brey, Edward D (EdwardDBrey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-06 11:00:02
> From: vesa_karvonen [mailto:vesa_karvonen_at_[hidden]]
> 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!
An excellent argument for maximizing the user of the pch. With so many
recompilations, incremental overhead really adds up.
> > 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.
Unless you use non-released boost code, you're throttled by the boost
release frequency, which is on the order of once a month. Would you avoid
putting files that change once a month into a pch?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk