3 ms·
Go's tooling is much better in one key aspect, compile times. Rust's compile times and feedback loop are terrible and it is not a community priority (ie. they w
by eikenberry 3y ago
Go's tooling is much better in one key aspect, compile times. Rust's compile times and feedback loop are terrible and it is not a community priority (ie. they want to make it faster, but only incrementally and not the orders of magnitude improvement it needs). Go's could be better but at least it is a priority.
- emi2k01 3y agoRust's compile times are worse than Go but are still way better than people make it to be. Here are some examples: --- Rust Analyzer: Clean build: 31.02s Incremental build: 3.07s (Added a `println!` in a level-2 dependency in the dependency graph) SLOC: 306,467 SLOC of dependencies: ~879,304 (After removing `win*` packages which make up for another 1.3M) --- Zola: Clean build: 24.58s Incremental build: 1.34s (Added a `println!` in a level-2 dependency in the dependency graph) SLOC: 17,233 SLOC of dependencies: ~2,087,781 (After removing `win*` packages which make up for another 1.3M) Obviously, not all source code gets compiled due to conditional compilation but it makes for a good approximate if you only take into account 2/3 of it. --- For comparison with Zig by building ZLS: Clean build: 20.13s Incremental build: 10.27s (I believe this builds the ZLS package again from scratch so not really incremental) SLOC: 45,806 SLOC of dependencies: I don't know how to get this. --- This was on a Ryzen 5600x