Why compiling a simplest thing using people's library (or environment) is SO SLOW.
Ecere, Qt, wxWidgets, GTK, irrlitch, SDL ... whatever,
This make their awesome thing harder to learn,
Why compiling a simplest thing using people's library (or environment) is SO SLOW.
Ecere, Qt, wxWidgets, GTK, irrlitch, SDL ... whatever,
This make their awesome thing harder to learn,
Just GET it OFF out my mind!!
Often this has to do with the amount of code in header files. If a library has a lot of templates (like boost), it will increase the compile time of anything that includes those header files by quite a bit.
Boost's compile time is just horrible because of all that magic done with it.
On Windows, you could use the installers/on Linux, use your package manager.
Native C++ weakness, aaargh!
I tought Qt is faster than javax.swing.*
It's just too much overhead.
Worse than the interpreted one.
Just GET it OFF out my mind!!
Actually I haven't noticed that including things like wxWidgets headers makes that much of a difference (with an exception for boost headers). There might be other factors, such as: do you perhaps include too many unnecessary stuff in your headers? If you change one header, does it mean that you'll have to recompile most of the projects - even lots of stuff that don't use that header?
I might be wrong.
Quoted more than 1000 times (I hope).Thank you, anon. You sure know how to recognize different types of trees from quite a long way away.
Qt is IMO faster than swing, but slower to compile.
Visual Studio's precompiled headers can help out a quite a bit with speed, if you are using Windows.
Originally Posted by Adak
