4 ms·
>[...] this will depend on who you ask, e.g. some C++ developers don’t mind Rust’s compilation times at all, as they are used to the same (or worse) build times
by juliangmp 1y ago
>[...] this will depend on who you ask, e.g. some C++ developers don’t mind Rust’s compilation times at all, as they are used to the same (or worse) build times
Yeah pretty much. C++ is a lot worse when you consider the practical time spent vs compilation benchmarks.
In most C++ projects I've seen/worked on, there were one or sometimes more code generators in the toolchain which slowed things down a lot.
And it looks even more dire when you want to add clang-tidy in the mix. It can take like 5 solid minutes to lint even small projects.
When I work in Rust, the overall speed of the toolchain (and the language server) is an absolute blessing!
- carlmr 1y ago>And it looks even more dire when you want to add clang-tidy in the mix. It can take like 5 solid minutes to lint even small projects. And running all tests with sanitizers, just to get some runtime checks of what Rust excludes at compile time. I love Rust for the fast compile times.
- feelamee 1y agowhy do you run clang-tidy with compiler? Just use it interactively - with cland. These is much more useful to me
- juliangmp 1y agoWe do use clangd and it provides many checks, but I wanted to include clang-tidy in the CI. Though since me and my colleagues combine ff-only and ‘must build successfully before merging’, adding like 5 minutes to the CI is really annoying. Iirc the reason why clangd is so much faster than clang-tidy is that clangs omits certain checks and limits which code it analyzes.