I'm not going to dive into your points about constraint solvers, type classes, or "monomorphization". Unless those things take more than a few percent of the c

I'm not going to dive into your points about constraint solvers, type classes, or "monomorphization". Unless those things take more than a few percent of the compile time, they're just more red herrings. > Incremental compilation is a way of addressing the compile time and memory usage issues. It's just not the way you seem to want them to be fixed. Nobody did incremental compilation for fun. I'm well aware that my opinion doesn't matter, but I doubt incremental compilation will make any real strides towards making things as good as they could be. It sounds like the real problem is here: > If I had to guess what the most important issue is, it's that idiomatic Rust generates a lot more LLVM IR than idiomatic C++ does I suspect every single feature in idiomatic Rust has a one-to-one translation to some bit of C++ that isn't too horrible. You can do lambdas, iterators, generators, or whatever else it takes to do Rust style for loops and closures in C++, and it won't choke the compiler. So while I don't doubt rustc is generating a lot more IR, I doubt it needs to. Maybe the MIR optimization pass will move in that direction.