>It's also (very roughly) 1.3 million kwh per year extra for rust and cpp developers to use those slower compilers once a month, relative to faster alternatives

>It's also (very roughly) 1.3 million kwh per year extra for rust and cpp developers to use those slower compilers once a month, relative to faster alternatives. What do you mean by "faster alternatives"? There is only one Rust compiler, and all the C++ compilers are about equally fast. Do you mean languages that compile faster? Do you really think most projects can just be made in one language or another and it doesn't matter? >A few core maintainers have the power to fix that and have chosen not to. Nobody chooses to make inefficient software. First, there's only so many man-months in the month. Second, compilers are constantly evolving creatures. Optimizations, generally speaking, make software more difficult to maintain. What would you rather? A somewhat slow compiler that can optimize your code really well, or a compiler that runs really fast, but can only compile the language version from ten years ago and generates slow binaries because the maintainers can't work around the optimization redesign from fifteen years ago? >And maybe that's fine. But it's a real cost, quite large relative to the other impact those individuals might have, and it's worth acknowledging rather than dismissing. I think you're underestimating how complex modern compilers are. If people are dismissing your concerns it's because they understand that the price they pay for efficient programs is slow compilers.