3 ms·
Rust seems to be more lightweight and portable in general. I think the compiler uses far less memory (and IIRC has better cross-compilation support too). The bi
by caconym_ 10y ago
Rust seems to be more lightweight and portable in general. I think the compiler uses far less memory (and IIRC has better cross-compilation support too). The binaries are much smaller and the runtime is simpler. Cargo is amazing and I have much more confidence in it to not give me build trouble. In particular, you get a test framework including doc tests for free; I know Haskell tools offer similar functionality but in practice the setup cost is far higher. Haddock is not bad, but it uses its own weird syntax; Rust's documentation system uses Markdown IIRC.
Also, some things are just easier to write in an imperative language. I expect that the performance and memory use of Rust programs is also easier to predict and understand, though generally I think Haskell gets a lot of unfair criticism in that department.
I haven't used Haskell in a while so some of the things I mentioned may have been improved upon since then. In particular, Stack may have grown up a bit.