Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Suggested method for returning a string from a C program?
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 16:49:35 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <vrs2eu$176lu$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vrd77d$3nvtf$2@dont-email.me> <20250319115550.0000676f@yahoo.com>
 <vreuj1$1asii$4@dont-email.me> <vreve4$19klp$2@dont-email.me>
 <20250319201903.00005452@yahoo.com> <86r02roqdq.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <vrh1br$35029$2@dont-email.me> <LRUCP.2$541.0@fx47.iad>
 <vrh71t$3be42$1@dont-email.me> <874izntt5t.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vrhviu$h5c$1@dont-email.me> <87ecyrs332.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vri9t1$a29t$1@dont-email.me> <20250320171505.221@kylheku.com>
 <vrif1v$c9ev$3@dont-email.me> <8734f7rw7z.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vrjjvb$1esjh$1@dont-email.me> <87tt7mqk7w.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vrkvt5$2k04q$2@dont-email.me> <87cye9afl0.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vrmckn$114k$1@dont-email.me> <871puoag2q.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vrnoft$15f6n$1@dont-email.me> <vrrh0c$qila$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrrouo$11up7$1@dont-email.me> <vrrqe0$12u8q$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrrs20$14vob$1@dont-email.me> <vrrvnh$176lu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrs0j5$191gt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 17:49:34 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cd36ac246702b474a1548a794b73ffc4";
	logging-data="1284798"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Mfmg4gbkZrD9oWGUOM1g/"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:agiBnzx+1Px/INDwmVBkJcQHRsI=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vrs0j5$191gt$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4159

On 24/03/2025 16:17, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 16:02:57 +0000
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:
>> On 24/03/2025 15:00, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>> real	0m0.815s
>>> user	0m0.516s
>>> sys	0m0.252s
>>
>>
>> So, your throughput is a whopping 9.5K lines/second?
> 
> On a tired laptop with multiple files it seems pretty good to me.
> 
>> Build time is 1/15th of a second, for about 30K lines (so 450Klps). But
>> I also want to compile this via C, to take advantage of gcc's superior
>> optimiser. So first I transpile to C (that's also under 70ms):
> 
> I'll paraphrase someone elses point - who fucking cares? If you need lightning
> fast compilation because you're constantly rebuilding your shit code to see if
> it'll even compile never mind work then that says a lot about you as a dev.

> The thinking/writing to compilation time ratio I imagine with most devs would
> probably be a minimum of 100 - 1, possibly much larger



>> The generated C file is 38Kloc, and takes 12 seconds. It takes nearly
>> TWO HUNDRED TIMES longer to build.
> 
> *GASP*! 12 whole seconds! How can you cope with your day being interrupted
> like that for so long!

So applying your 100:1 ratio, you'd spend 20 whole minutes pondering 
your next move before compiling again?

When you have near-instant build times then it's completely different 
way of working.

Do you think people who work with scripting languages (or even writing 
HTML) would tolerate an exasperating 12-second day between hitting Run, 
and their test-run starting?

In the case of this project, development is incremental: run a test, 
there's an opcode not yet done, add the lines for it, test it again.

Or do a timing test, measure, tweak a line to two, time it again to see 
if it's any better.

Or there might be bunch of configuration and debug settings, that don't 
warrant dedicated CLI options, so to change a setting means changing one 
line and rebuilding. Why not? It only takes an instant!

If I had to wait 10+ seconds each time then it would both take all 
fucking day AND drive me around the bend.

You really haven't got a clue.