|
|
|
|
|
by foldr
2851 days ago
|
|
>So you hardly know the languages No, I know all of the languages that you mentioned except CLU. And since I don't think there are even any practical CLU implementations available for modern hardware, I'm not sure how you are able to compare CLU compile times to Go compile times. Are you maintaining a legacy CLU codebase or something? Now, if there are scientific comparisons available, I'll happily defer to those. But unless you spend inordinate amounts of your time comparing compile times between languages, I doubt that you have any scientific info to go on either. |
|
Doesn't look like actually knowing them to me.
> Are you maintaining a legacy CLU codebase or something?
No, just you are apparently stating that a CLU compiler developed to be usable in 1971 hardware will run slower than Go on 2018 hardware, which doesn't make much sense.
Talking numbers, D was taking 1.24s to compile its complete standard library in 2010, (too lazy to try out the latest version) including the piles of template code that it has.
https://digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/D_compilati...