4 ms·
Have you not read the post? Because compile times. Rust has awful compile times. If it didn't, I'm sure the Roc team would have stayed with Rust.
by coffeeaddict1 2y ago
Have you not read the post? Because compile times. Rust has awful compile times. If it didn't, I'm sure the Roc team would have stayed with Rust.
- greener_grass 2y agoYes, I read the post. I don't understand why the goal is not to (eventually) implement Roc in Roc, maybe with a dash of something else for the "platform". Roc is pitched as a general purpose functional programming language with great performance. How does a compiler not fall under this category?
- Hasnep 2y agoRoc is pitched as having great performance for a GC'd language, that is, on par with Java, Go, C# instead of Ruby, Python, JS. The Roc compiler team are looking for C, C++, Rust, Zig kind of performance. Roc will, by design, never reach that kind of speed.
- greener_grass 2y agoWe already have many great GC'd functional languages at that performance level. I first learned about Roc from this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzfy4EKwG_Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzfy4EKwG_Y That's a niche that is not currently filled (well, maybe MLTon) and that has me very excited! I'm sure I'm not alone here.
- Skinney 2y agoGo's compiler is written in Go, and is known to compile very quickly. I'm not sure I understand why Roc needs to be even faster than that?