> Rust's cuts down on total development time because of the extensive checks it performs Plus, there's rust-analyzer/LSP. It works in real-time, and catches ba

> Rust's cuts down on total development time because of the extensive checks it performs Plus, there's rust-analyzer/LSP. It works in real-time, and catches basically everything one might care about, no compiler needed. It's kind of like a static interpreter. My use cases are modest, but so far, once r-a was happy, the compiler was as well. Mileage might vary when using crate features, possibly? Inactive features are (until Rust 1.72 at least) invisible to the compiler so issues might arise only at compile-time there. > I'd rather correct tests than fast tests, just like I'd rather a thorough compilation over a fast one. The first one is a false dichotomy though. It's not like people write fast but incorrect tests whenever given a keyboard.