30 Oct
2011
30 Oct
'11
11:21 a.m.
On 30/10/11 1:37 PM, Mouse wrote:
That is true. But then, there's lynx :)
A lot of development these days doesn't get compiled (e.g. PHP).
And yes, for big projects, you need to scale up somewhat. But it's not
as if compiling is what one does all day. In between compiles, you need
to do what a programmer does. :)
> [...] developers don't WANT to work on slow
machines.
Wouldn't make much difference to me. [...] 3) Stuff-all else that taxes a machine (the most
demanding thing
would be a web browser and occasional unit test runs).
You don't specify what "a web browser" is. What most people mean by
that is something that often won't run at all, never mind run well, on
"slow machines" like my SS20. Are there common things that a programmer waits
for? Compiles have
hardly been a burden in the past decade...
Then you're already using fast machines, and, what's more, you're
working only on small pieces of software. A year or two ago, I was
working (for $THEN_JOB) on something that - on a "modern" "fast"
machine, mind you - took something like half an hour to build from
scratch, and annoying long, multiple minutes, even to do a "nothing
changed" build. And that's with everything already in cache.
I moderately often work with a piece of software that, even on a
relatively modern machine, takes significant time - long enough for a
human to get frustrated - to build. I just now did a test build, in a
ramdisk on a Core 2 Duo at 1.8GHz, and it took a minute fifty-four
seconds.
One source file? Or many?
--Toby
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B