5 ms·
I agree with you on the easy part, but it’s definitely not as fast. In JS you get instant hot code reload and even without that the interpreter starts up pretty
by M4v3R 2y ago
I agree with you on the easy part, but it’s definitely not as fast. In JS you get instant hot code reload and even without that the interpreter starts up pretty fast. In comparison Rust takes a while to recompile even with simple changes, and if you have more changes in many files (eg. switching between branches) then it’s really slow.
- mtndew4brkfst 2y agoThis matters, a lot, for contributing to the tool authored in Rust. But for merely installing and benefiting from it, compile-time is largely a one-time cost that pays returns quite soon.
- sksxihve 2y agoI didn't say compiling was fast, though compiling go is pretty fast. I also don't think anyone is arguing that tools need to be written in AoT languages, if you or anyone want to use js and js tools go for it. I think having more choices is a good thing, and sometimes rewriting something from scratch will result in a cleaner/better version. The community at large is going to decide which tooling becomes the standard way to do it, so the author should make an argument on why the js tooling is better instead of weak statements like the one I quoted.