> Please avoid misleading statements like "orders of magnitude faster". If that were true, even super-complex projects would compile in a few seconds, given it

> Please avoid misleading statements like "orders of magnitude faster". If that were true, even super-complex projects would compile in a few seconds, given it would be at least 100x faster than compiling C++. The tests of my Rust range-v3 like library compile in ~12 seconds. The tests of C++'s range-v3 take ~320 seconds to compile. > Please avoid obvious exaggerations... The incremental compile of the same library takes in Rust ~1 second. In C++, it still takes ~320 seconds, zero improvement because C++ header-only generic libraries do not benefit from incremental compilation. > Modules are not even used yet by any big project nor properly supported yet, and they are not expected to speed up compilation much anyway. I maintain a ~500kLOC C++ project that uses modules. C++ Modules did not speed up compilation at all over simple PCHs. > It does have a cache per user/project/etc., which is basically the same and without it the speed would be atrocious. No it does not. Check out any project from crates.io into a subdirectory, do a cargo build. Check it out into another sub-director, do a cargo build. All dependencies are re-built. You'd need to go way out of your way and set up like sscache to get something similar, but Rust and cargo do not do this. > It isn't hard: C can be compiled way faster than either C++ or Rust because the code and type system is much simpler. Citation needed. On my machine, rustc spends ~80% of its time in LLVM, which is slow, because the translation units are huge. The other 20% is split into ~5% parsin, ~5% type checking, and ~10% LLVM-IR generation. Even rustc's synthetic trait metaprogramming benchmarks do not spend even 10% of the compile-time in type checking. So if you have a test for which rustc spends most of its compile-time in type checking, go ahead, and post a link. We'd love to add it to rustc's benchmark suite. Also, on my machine, while clang spends less time in code generation, it is still over ~60%. Clang spends more time in parsing and type checking, and that's because C++ overload resolution scales with the number of visible overloads, and the more header files you have, the more overloads there are (e.g. an error with operator<< on a ~500kLOC project produces ~2000 "potential candidates"). While that's part of the slowdown, still 60% of the time is spent in LLVM. The reason is that idiomatic C++ just produces more code than C due to templates, inlining, etc. for similarly-sized TUs. Parallelizing compilation within a TU is hard to do well. Rustc tries without much success and clang does not. In C, you can simply parallelize by using more compiler processes to compile fully independent TUs in parallel. These TUs are also smaller because idiomatic C code doesn't use many macros to generate code, most functions are linked opaquely, generics also generate few code via void*, and the worst culprit of long compilation times in C, which is including too many header files, can properly be cached using PCHs.