3 ms·

Thanks to dtolnay for boldly doing what it took to make some real progress on the problem of proc macro compile times. It's unfortunate that we reacted the way

Thanks to dtolnay for boldly doing what it took to make some real progress on the problem of proc macro compile times. It's unfortunate that we reacted the way we did, driving him to abort the experiment. I'm sorry I contributed to the pile-on with my first comment on the infamous GitHub issue, the one I directed specifically at him. I'll be slower to react next time.

epage 3y ago
I disagree that what was done with good but agree with matklad [0] about basic expectations of transparency and communication when you maintain de facto standards. This is too big of an "experiment" to run in production code on the ecosystem without first seeking input of drawing attention to it. If any of this was done to "push the conversation forward", it is done in an unhealthy way that burns a lot of bridges. As for making progress on the idea of improving build times, I agree with kayabaNerve from the Pre-RFC [1] > It's effectively impossible to fairly review this on its merit now, nor to say it isn't being reviewed on an accelerated time span than it would otherwise have been. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/15va70a/serde_has_started_shipping_precompiled_binaries/jwuacsp/ https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/15va70a/serde_has_sta... [1] https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-sandboxed-deterministic-reproducible-efficient-wasm-compilation-of-proc-macros/19359/5?u=epage https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-rfc-sandboxed-determin...