4 ms·
Me! Sort of. Rust is definitely further along the scale towards the end of "giving more to the compiler so it takes longer". I usually like the trade. Most of
by swsieber 8y ago
Me! Sort of.
Rust is definitely further along the scale towards the end of "giving more to the compiler so it takes longer". I usually like the trade. Most of the time.
- adrianN 8y agoRust also has a saner module system that makes incremental builds much quicker. They're still pretty slow, but not as agonizingly slow as a clean build.
- nicoburns 8y agoRust is only fast compared to C++ (and then only sometimes). Literally every other language is significantly faster to compile. I'm hoping this can change though. Rust with fast compile times and a more complete library ecosystem (and ideally better IDE support) would be an incredibly productive language.
- dzdt 8y agoScala is slower to compile than C++ in large scale enterprise development. (The exception that proves the rule?)
- aphexairlines 8y agoCompared with C++, Scala projects are not slow to compile when you use Gradle multi-project builds (with granular sub-projects) and Gradle build caching.
- nicoburns 8y agoAh, I forgot about Scala. Someone below mentioned Haskell too (which I haven't used). Still, calling Rust fast seems wrong to me!
- swsieber 8y agoNot as agonizingly slow, but still agonizingly slow. While I do appreciate build speed improvements, saying that it's better than it was isn't a super high bar in terms of user experience. I love Rust, I really do, but it's still incredibly slow. I'm excited for any progress it makes on this front.
- kodemizer 8y agoI think the most promising thing on this front is Cranelift (https://github.com/CraneStation/cranelift https://github.com/CraneStation/cranelift). The idea is that, when cranelift is ready, we might use it for debug builds (but still use LLVM for release builds).