4 ms·

jesus christ rust's compilation times are as terrible as c++'s?

• kzrdude 5y ago
  It's the same ballpark
  • tester34 5y ago
    I think we must do better AAA games need less resources than those tree walkers
  • spoiler 5y ago
    In my experience (C++ dev at work) C++ generally feels slower than Rust. Edit: I quickly realised, this might only because of Rust's—in my opinion—superior type system and tooling, so maybe it just requires less waiting for compilations than when working C++. Edit 2: I've never actually measured Rust compilation times, but even for large-ish graphical codebases (wezterm, alacritty, bevy games) I've compiled from scratch, it felt noticeably faster even then.
• okamiueru 5y ago
  I don't know about Him, but at least when working with C++ I feel the compile time is entirely up to deliberate tradeoffs. With better planning and more effort made with forward headers, better implementation boundaries w/pimpl like constructs, and otherwise linking, and avoiding meta-programming entirely, I've not found it to be an issue. Incremental C++ builds can be lightning fast, or it can be ridiculously slow. I've worked on large projects where change + incremental compile + test was less than 5 seconds. And I've worked with project where no effort was made where the same could take 10 minutes.
  • gpderetta 5y ago
    Keeping your C++ compilation times reasonable requires eternal vigilance (or a distributed system with aggressive caching).
• IshKebab 5y ago
  In my experience Rust is faster for full clean builds, even if you use slow dependencies like Serde. However C++'s compilation units are smaller than Rust's which helps it to have faster incremental compilation times for small changes. So, same order of magnitude basically.