Why use Open Source when Microsoft products are so cheap... 10017
 |
snips
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 11:00:08 GMT Good points. I'll admit were I to design a system similar to...
You have to quantify it because "slow" is meaningless. I've worked on codebases where, despite distributed compilation and a good number of machines cranking away, compiles require better than eight hours. I've worked on codebases where, on a single machine, recompiles took a couple of minutes. Which of those is slow?
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS wrote on Tue, 2 Aug 2005 17:07:27 -0400 I was thinking something along the lines of megabytes per second, if at all possible. In other words, a 10 MB document might take...
Right - the couple of minutes. Using a different compiler, the same codebase could be recompiled in a matter of 15 to 20 seconds, and since it was under both active and heavy development, wasting the extra time waiting every time a change was made sucked up enormous amounts of developer time, whereas the nightly builds, despite the length of time involved, happened when nobody was at work anyways, so were effectively instantaneous as far as the developers were concerned.
I've noticed something about you. You seem to be incapable of examining anything at all unless it can be reduced to a single data point. You discuss cost, but ignore value. You mention slowness, but ignore impact. Most people are able to cope with more than one data point about a given subject; why is your intellect incapable of what everyone else regards as a very basic feat?