4 ms·

> 1. No, the grammar is not the issue per se. As you say, C has the same problem, and C code invariably compiles dozens of times faster than C++, and both Zig a

by bsder 3y ago

> 1. No, the grammar is not the issue per se. As you say, C has the same problem, and C code invariably compiles dozens of times faster than C++, and both Zig and Rust have modern grammars, but Zig compiles about as quickly as C and Rust is only somewhat faster than C++ (depending on features used). Sorry, the C++ grammar is terrible. There are lots of things where C++ can't figure out whether something is a class or name or template or constructor call until looking way far down the chain. However, you are the first person I think I have ever heard claim that Rust is faster than C++. Rust is notoriously slow to compile. Zig generally compiles much faster than most C projects I've used. However, that is difficult to lay at the hands of C as a lot of those are the build system being obtuse.

fluoridation 3y ago
>Sorry, the C++ grammar is terrible. When did I say otherwise? What I said was that it's not the main cause of C++'s long compilation times. The grammar causes other problems, such as making it more difficult to write parsers for IDEs, and creating things like the most vexing parse. >However, you are the first person I think I have ever heard claim that Rust is faster than C++. Rust is notoriously slow to compile. It's kind of a mixed bag. Given two projects of similar complexity, one in C++ and one in Rust, the one written in Rust will take longer to compile if organized as a single crate, because right now there's no way to parallelize compilation within a single crate. However, compiling the C++ version will definitely be the larger computational task, and would take longer if done in a single thread. Both contain Turing-complete meta-languages, so both can make compiling a fixed length source take an arbitrarily long time. Rust's type system is more complex, but I think C++'s templates win out on computational load. You're running a little dynamically typed script inside the compiler every time you instantiate a template.

by bsder 3y ago

fluoridation 3y ago

>Sorry, the C++ grammar is terrible. When did I say otherwise? What I said was that it's not the main cause of C++'s long compilation times. The grammar causes other problems, such as making it more difficult to write parsers for IDEs, and creating things like the most vexing parse. >However, you are the first person I think I have ever heard claim that Rust is faster than C++. Rust is notoriously slow to compile. It's kind of a mixed bag. Given two projects of similar complexity, one in C++ and one in Rust, the one written in Rust will take longer to compile if organized as a single crate, because right now there's no way to parallelize compilation within a single crate. However, compiling the C++ version will definitely be the larger computational task, and would take longer if done in a single thread. Both contain Turing-complete meta-languages, so both can make compiling a fixed length source take an arbitrarily long time. Rust's type system is more complex, but I think C++'s templates win out on computational load. You're running a little dynamically typed script inside the compiler every time you instantiate a template.