4 ms·
It’s funny, because your claim that it’s a great indicator is contradicted by the article we’re discussing. Rust was widely considered to be “only pay for what
by nindalf 3y ago
It’s funny, because your claim that it’s a great indicator is contradicted by the article we’re discussing. Rust was widely considered to be “only pay for what you use” despite having 4MB hello world programs. And now that it’s 400KB that continues to be true. So in this case, 4MB wasn’t a good indicator was it?
- lionkor 3y agoIts still a great indicator, its just that indicators dont mean very much sometimes.
- weinzierl 3y agoIt's funny that it was already considered be “only pay for what you use” when the binaries contained half of H. P. Lovecraft's œuvre. See issue #13871 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/13871 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/13871 I exaggerate, point is that we've come a long way and are still getting better. Different people look at different metrics and the more popular the language becomes the bigger the variety of metrics the come into focus.
- lifthrasiir 3y agoShould've used that as a ballast instead [1]. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20230708052006/https://www.gamedeveloper.com/programming/dirty-coding-tricks https://web.archive.org/web/20230708052006/https://www.gamed... (search for "The Programming Antihero")