From:	charles AT pentek DOT com (Charles Krug)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Why?
Date:	19 Jul 2001 13:18:14 GMT
Organization:	Concentric Internet Services
Lines:	17
Message-ID:	<slrn9ldngl.knl.charles@homer.pentek.com>
References:	<20010717143916 DOT 30436 DOT qmail AT web14608 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> <3B5633D2 DOT 2090405 AT operamail DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	205.158.181.210
User-Agent:	slrn/0.9.7.0 (SunOS)
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 21:11:46 -0400, Sahab Yazdani <sahaby AT operamail DOT com> wrote:
> Anton Andreev wrote:
> >[sniped] - general area of discussion: Borland C compiles faster than GCC.
> 
> maybe, but the code that GCC produces is *soo* much faster than the one 
> Borland creates.  it is worth the extra time IMO.  and also GCC complies 
> with more of the C/C++ standards than Borland if i remember correctly.
> 

And compile time, though an inconvenience for us, is largely irrelevant.  Even
if I compile code twenty times a day (meaning successful builds, not "whoops,
I missed a semicolon"), I still spend much more time trying to figure out
what's going wrong at runtime than I do waiting for builds to complete.


Charles

- Raw text -