Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!pasteur!agate!e260-1f.berkeley.edu!c60a-1cu
From: c60a-1cu@e260-1f.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Many people's opinions on computer languages
Message-ID: <14147@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 11 Sep 88 22:08:48 GMT
References: <3938@enea.se> <923@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 22

In article <923@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>Many have argued that the compiler would be slowed down, or that a many pass
>compiler would be needed.  Now you are arguing that machine time is not that
>important.  If execution time is not that important, why should compiler time
>be any more important?
>-- 
>Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
>Phone: (317)494-6054
>hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)
Becuase compile times are directly related to programmer productivity.  How
many times do you sit are your terminal (pc, workstation, whatever) just
waiting for that 10+ minute (or even 5 minute) compile to finish ?
Nah...you don't.  You get up, get some coffee or whatever, go talk to
somebody, and end up being away from your desk for 15 minutes.  Then it
turns out that the compiler aborted 30 seconds into the job because of some
(often dumb, like forgetting a command line switch) error.  Now you've
just wasted 14+ minutes.  If that same compile will take 30 seconds total,
you just sit through it, and think a little.  Do this a couple of hundred
times, and the lost time really adds up....

Drew Dean
FROM Disclaimers IMPORT StandardDisclaimer;