4 ms·
Good for you. Like the grandparent commenter said, for others these tradeoffs might be important. E.g.: > I am disappointed with how poorly Rust's build scales
by thih9 2y ago
Good for you. Like the grandparent commenter said, for others these tradeoffs might be important. E.g.:
> I am disappointed with how poorly Rust's build scales, even with the incremental test-utf-8 benchmark which shouldn't be affected that much by adding unrelated files. (...)
> I decided to not port the rest of quick-lint-js to Rust. But... if build times improve significantly, I will change my mind!
https://quick-lint-js.com/blog/cpp-vs-rust-build-times/ https://quick-lint-js.com/blog/cpp-vs-rust-build-times/
- Ygg2 2y ago> Good for you. > https://quick-lint-js.com/blog/cpp-vs-rust-build-times/ https://quick-lint-js.com/blog/cpp-vs-rust-build-times/ Look you're picking a memory unsafe language versus a safe one. Whatever meager gains you save on compilation times (and the link shows the difference is meager if you aren't on a MacOS, which I'm not) will be obliterated by losses in figuring out which UB nasal demon was accidentally released. This is like that argument that dynamic types save time, because you can catch error in tests. But then have to write more tests to compensate, so you lose time overall.