No Compiler – On LLVM, and writing software without a compiler

Re:No Compiler – On LLVM, and writing software without a com... by exDM69 on Friday March 04, 2016 @08:36AM (#11223585)

Yes, GC is a big issue... or was back when Go was just getting started. GC support in LLVM should be MUCH better now. Ie. it has everything you need to hook up a GC in it, but there isn't a built-in GC in it.

And the fact that the first people working on Go have a good knowledge of the Plan9 toolchain probably gave them a head start. But that benefit has probably eroded long ago.

And I completely disagree with the Go team's emphasis on compile times. Fast result programs are far more important than fast compile times. Fast compile times are nice to have, but not much more than that. But this is just my opinion, it's as good as anyone else's.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No Compiler – On LLVM, and writing software without a com... by iampims on Friday March 04, 2016 @12:29PM (#11225282)

Fast compile times let you use Go as a scripting language, which has been key to its adoption from the python/ruby community.

Fast compile times also let you run your test suite every time you hit ctrl + s.

Fast compile times also let you run tools like gomft without feeling like it is slowing you down.

I agree that fast programs are essential and (ideally) not mutually exclusive with fast compile times.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No Compiler – On LLVM, and writing software without a com... by pcwalton on Friday March 04, 2016 @03:56PM (#11226793)

> I agree that fast programs are essential and (ideally) not mutually exclusive with fast compile times.

They are. It is always a tradeoff.

[ Parent | on HN ]