[vph]

>Personally, I think the Go community is a little unhealthily obsessed with this particular metric.

Let's not forget that Go was invented to solve Google's problems, one of which is it took hours to compile their C,C++ codes. Compile time of Go 1.7, despite the improvement, is still 2x that of Go 1.4.

[pjmlp]

C was already taking hours to compile in 2000, whereas languages with modules from Algol family would compile just in several minutes.

What I find positive about Go is making younger generations that only know C and C++ rediscover the compile times we had in the native compilation during the 90's.

[sievebrain]

Yes, in the mid nineties one of Delphi's killer features was super fast compiles. Partly possible due to a single pass compiler but it was just a very fast language to compile.

Really, most compiled languages except C++ are fast to compile. In the other thread I pointed out that Java compiles very fast, but nobody in the Go community likes to talk about that, it seems. Actually Java does have multi-tiered compilers, so the frontend is very fast as it doesn't optimise, and then the JIT compiler has a fast-but-low-quality compiler and a slower-but-higher-quality compiler, meaning you get the developer benefits of instant turnaround but the code still gets heavily optimised to GCC/LLVM quality in the hot spots.

[colin_mccabe]

I agree that the Java compiler itself runs fast, but many of the surrounding tools in the Java ecosystem are not fast. For example, Maven takes several minutes to rebuild Hadoop. Based on my experiences, neither Gradle nor ant are that much fast than Maven (although they are a bit faster.)

I disagree that "most compiled languages... are fast to compile." Scala is relatively slow to compile (I've seen Spark take over an hour to build). OCaml and SML are none too speedy to compile. Rust's compiler is rather slow (they're going to focus on speeding it up, I have heard.) It seems like most compiled languages that people actually use are slow to compile.

Go is a big exception due to its conscious decision to focus on fast compile times. This choice wasn't free-- it involved carefully considering tradeoffs. For example, Go compiles source code files unit-by-unit, forgoing global optimizations in the name of time. The grammar of the language is simpler, in order to enable more efficient parsing. Features like operator overloading are not present. It is trivial to tell what is a function call what is not-- there is no "syntactic sugar" like Ruby's function calls without parens.

[sievebrain]

Hadoop is 2 million lines of code. Yes, that's going to take a few minutes to compile no matter what language it's written in (if it has a compile stage at all).

By "most compiled languages" I guess I was thinking of the most popular ones, not literally all compiled languages. Sloppy phrasing, sorry. The top compiled languages according to TIOBE are Java, C, C++, C# (actually these are the top languages in general). Then they're all scripting languages until position 11 which is Delphi. So those are the top 5 and except for C/C++ they compile fast.

OCaml, SML, Haskell, Rust etc are all rather rare languages.

[colin_mccabe]

I don't agree that 2 million lines of code is "going to take a few minutes to compile no matter what [compiled] language it's written in." Based on my experiences with Go so far, I believe Go could get that significantly faster, probably under a minute. Also, the "several minutes" number I quoted is also for incremental compiles where only one very small thing has changed, not just for full compiles, which take even longer.

TIOBE is a poor measure of programming language popularity for a lot of reasons. But even if we accept that Java, C, C++, and C# are the top languages, I already commented that Java's build is not that fast in the real world (except for very small projects). I don't have any first-hand experience with C#, but I've never heard anyone claim fast compilation is an advantage of that language. C and C++ are slow builders, as we already know. So the top compiled languages are rather slow compilers, which is one reason why scripting languages (I assume you mean non-ahead-of-time-compiled-languages) became popular in the 2000s. This is one part of what Rob Pike was talking about when he said "poorly designed static type systems drive people to dynamic typing."

[sievebrain]

I would be skeptical of that, but I wasn't able to find LOC/sec stats for the Go compiler(s) anywhere. If you can point me to LOC/sec performance figures, that'd be interesting.

Gradle/Maven don't do incremental compilation at the level of the file, so yes, they're gonna redo the whole thing each time. Use an IDE for that. IntelliJ will happily do incremental compilation in Java projects at the level of the individual file (and there's no relinking overhead).

I understand that you're saying the top languages are slow builders, but it's just not the case. It sounds like you've used tools which simply aren't optimised for build times and judging the language based on that. But I usually have roundtrip times between editing my code and running the recompiled program of about a second when working with Java.

[incepted]

> TIOBE is a poor measure of programming language popularity for a lot of reasons.

And yet, it is completely consistent with pretty much all other measurements of programming language popularity (github, job postings, StackOverflow answers, etc...).

So maybe it's not that poor a measure after all.

[airless_cotton]

TIL that there are still people who believe that parsing has any impact on compilation speed.

[pjmlp]

Do you know Walter Bright?

The guy that created the first C++ native compiler and one of the D authors?

http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/c-compilation-speed/228701711

[tptacek]

At it's slowest point, this compiler took single-digit seconds for its biggest workloads. So: I don't see how Google's C++ compile times are relevant.

[incepted]

> Let's not forget that Go was invented to solve Google's problems

No, it was invented to solve the problem that a handful of Google engineers experienced while writing C++ at Google.

Most of Google's code base is written in Java and as such, doesn't suffer from slow compilations.