4 ms·
Yes this, I mainly use Go for it's simplicity and the speed of the compiler. What I don't want is Rust compile speeds.
by KingOfCoders 3y ago
Yes this, I mainly use Go for it's simplicity and the speed of the compiler. What I don't want is Rust compile speeds.
- pjmlp 3y agoAs proven by D, OCaml, F#, Delphi, Ada, C++23 (with modules, VC++/clang 18), it is a matter of toolchain. What we need is a Rust interpreter, or having something like Cranelift properly integrated, to only depend on LLVM when doing release builds on the CI/CD.
- KingOfCoders 3y agoHaving used Scala for some years with it's abysmal compile speed, I fear it has to do with complexity of the language and features, it was "implicit" in Scala, it might be the borrow checker in Rust (IANACG)
- pjmlp 3y agoNote that I left out Scala, while I included other languages of similar complexity, exactly because improving compile times has never been a major focus in Scala land, versus features. Example, development effort wasted on Scala 3 Python like syntax. There are several performance reports that show that the major culprit is the pile of LLVM IR sent to the backend.
- steveklabnik 3y agoIf you examine what takes time in the Rust compiler, the borrow checker is never a significant component. The largest single bit tends to be codegen, which is why cargo check is so much faster than cargo build.
- KingOfCoders 3y agoAh!