Funny how slow Visual Studio compile times in often are seen as being carved in stone.
"Building our solution takes 3 minutes, so each time I change a line of code in a base component and run the app, I must wait 3 minutes. Period."
Is this really how software development should work these days?
As projects grow over time, compilation gets slower and slower. Productivity goes south when people are watching the compiler do its work half the time. The decline creeps in and people think this is just normal, until a new developer arrives and throws his hands up in horror.
Also, Visual Studio seems to lack behind other IDEs (most notably Eclipse) on this topic. Eclipse has built-in support for REAL incremental background compilation for ages now (it compiles while the developer types (or during idle time), hence can start the application with no or little delay once he hits <Run>). Visual Studio still doesn't.
So let's see what we can do to speed up things in Visual Studio.
(1) Decrease File IO / Speed Up Remaining File IO
Use the same output path for every project in your solution, e.g. "..\Output\Debug" for "Debug" configuration (Project / Properties / Build / Output Path). All assemblies will be created there, so no need to copy files back and forth between project folders.
If there is only one output path, project references can be set to "Copy Local = False" (References / Properties / Copy Local). This furthermore decreases File IO.
I have experienced up to three-fold buildtime improvements by applying that simple configuration change.
In addition, you might want to mitigate virus scanner policies for scans on devenv.exe file access, as well as using a separate phyiscal drive for source files and compile output, maybe even a SSD drive.
(2) Prevent non-dependent project compilation
If a solution contains projects, that the current startup project does not depend upon (e.g. test projects), compiling those projects can be avoided by selecting the option "Only build startup projects and dependencies on Run" under Tools / Options / Projects and Solutions / Build and Run.
(3) Prevent project dependency tree compilation
Visual Studio resp. MSBuild compiles all projects with changes, plus the complete project dependency tree underneath those projects. This is all good and fine, but it also implies that once only one line of code is changed in a commonly used base class, this might cause a complete solution recompilation. But why should we recompile everything, when say only the interior of a single method implementation has changed?
When you know that you are going to change something deep down in your dependency tree, but won't be altering non-private method signatures, here is what you can do:
Option 3.1: Manually avoid dependent project recompile
Under Tools / Options / Projects and Solutions / Build and Run, choose "On run, when projects are out of date: Never build". Then, manually build the project only where sourcecode has been edited (Build <projectname> resp. Shift-F6), and finally run the startup project. This too only works when all projects use the same output folder (see (1)).
Option 3.2: Additional solution configurations
Create additional solution configurations for partial builds, and apply identical output paths as defined in (1) (Solution / Properties / Configuration Properties / Configuration Manager / Active Solution Configuration / New).
Solution configurations allow for defining which projects should be built, and which should not; this can lead to much smaller build dependency trees. We might provide configurations for framework class libraries, for functional modules or for data access projects, and so on. And once we know we only are going to change the inner workings of certain components, we switch to the suitable solution configuration first.
Other dependent projects are not going to be compiled if they are not part of the active configuration. What does that imply at runtime? As there are no newly built dependent assemblies, the previously built assemblies (still residing in "..\Output\Debug") are going to be loaded, which is just what we want.
Option 3.3: Decouple projects, use assembly references instead of project references
Decoupling is not only recommended for software architecture in general, it might also boost compiletime. When application layers are separated (e.g. coding against interfaces, and acquiring implementation classes only at runtime by using factories, dependency injection and the like), code changes other than interface modifications will not lead to dependent project compilations any more.
Also, choose solution structure carefully. You don't want one project containing 80% of all code, and the rest spread on ten other projects. Or consider having Team A work on projectset #1, and Team B working on projectset #2, which depends on what Team A has produced. Provide separate solution files for each Team, let Team A deliver libraries to Team B, and integrate them in Team B's solution by using assembly references (instead of project references).
Take those options with a grain of salt, though. Once signatures of methods invoked by other assemblies are actually altered, the compiler will not be able to pick that up, and runtime errors will occure. In addition, these approaches require stable assembly version numbers.