[loeg]

> The test was performed by compiling the source code below 128 times, calculating the average time.

Presumably, 127/128 runs have both the test file and the single header file in memory cache, so the distinction is moot.

Also, I find the conclusion that we should all just buy top end machines and ignore performance problems that don't manifest there fairly unconvincing. I think that kind of thinking is responsible for a good chunk of the reason the web is so bloated today. :-)

[cgrealy]

There's a difference between development (read: build) performance and runtime performance.

For any kind of even vaguely profitable software, your developers should all have kick arse machines.

But they should test on a $200 laptop :)

[21]

Doom/Quake were developed on a NeXT machine much faster and more capable than the targeted IBM PCs.

You don't need to develop on a $200 notebook to care about performance.