4 ms·
With Rust you get safety at compile time while avoiding memory safety issues at runtime. The compile times are objectively longer compared to most other languag
by Elinvynia 6y ago
With Rust you get safety at compile time while avoiding memory safety issues at runtime. The compile times are objectively longer compared to most other languages. But whether this trade-off is worth it for you depends a lot on your company's CI pipeline and the skill of the developers.
- Gibbon1 6y agoI feel like the long compilation times is going to be a show stopper for smaller teams/companies where you can't afford the loss in productivity.
- efnx 6y agoAnecdotally I can tell you it does not amount to a loss in productivity. Cargo caches built deps so the cost is really only paid once in a while and the advantages of rusts type system are a boon to productivity.
- lmm 6y agoIf productivity is important, you really can't afford memory corruption bugs. Those can easily take weeks to hunt down.
- pdimitar 6y agoIt can be slightly annoying -- compared to f.ex. OCaml with its lightning-fast compiler -- but in practice incremental recompilation is much faster than a compilation from scratch so it rarely irks me that badly.
- verdagon 6y agoI'm not sure safety has anything to do with long compile times, can you enlighten?
- efnx 6y agoThere’s a lot happening at compile time that less safe languages don’t do. Type checking and type erasure, etc