3 ms·

I don't really consider it to be slow at all. It seems about as performant as any other language this complexity, and it's far faster than the 15 minute C++ an

I don't really consider it to be slow at all. It seems about as performant as any other language this complexity, and it's far faster than the 15 minute C++ and Scala build times I'd place in the same category.

randomNumber7 1y ago
When C++ templates are turing complete is it pointless to complain about the compile times without considering the actual code :)
mountainriver 1y ago
I also don’t understand this, the rust compiler hardly bothers me at all when I’m working. I feel like this is due to how bad it was early on and people just sticking to that narrative
BanterTrouble 1y ago
The memory usage is quite large compared to C/C++ when compiling. I use Virtual Machines for Demos on my YouTube Channel and compiling something large in Rust requires 8GB+. In C/C++ I don't even have to worry about it.
- windward 1y ago
  I can't say the same. Telling people to use `-j$(nproc)` in lieu of `-j` to avoid the wrath of the OOM-killer is a rite of passage
- gpm 1y ago
  I can't agree, I've had C/C++ builds of well known open source projects try to use >100GB of memory...
  - BanterTrouble 1y ago
    Maybe something else is going on then. I've done builds of some large open source projects and most of the time they was maxing the cores (I was building j32) but memory usage was fine. Out of interest what were they?
    - gpm 1y ago
      > Out of interest what were they? The one that immediately comes to mind is cvc5... not super recently though. I suspect that "tried to" is doing a bit of work here. The fact that it was failing and swapping out probably meant that the more memory heavy g++ processes were going slower than the memory light ones, resulting in more of them running simultaneously than would likely have happened in a normal successful build. Still, this was on a system with 32GB of ram, so it was using roughly that before swapping would slow down more memory intensive processes.

randomNumber7 1y ago

When C++ templates are turing complete is it pointless to complain about the compile times without considering the actual code :)

mountainriver 1y ago

I also don’t understand this, the rust compiler hardly bothers me at all when I’m working. I feel like this is due to how bad it was early on and people just sticking to that narrative

BanterTrouble 1y ago

The memory usage is quite large compared to C/C++ when compiling. I use Virtual Machines for Demos on my YouTube Channel and compiling something large in Rust requires 8GB+. In C/C++ I don't even have to worry about it.

windward 1y ago
I can't say the same. Telling people to use `-j$(nproc)` in lieu of `-j` to avoid the wrath of the OOM-killer is a rite of passage
gpm 1y ago
I can't agree, I've had C/C++ builds of well known open source projects try to use >100GB of memory...
- BanterTrouble 1y ago
  Maybe something else is going on then. I've done builds of some large open source projects and most of the time they was maxing the cores (I was building j32) but memory usage was fine. Out of interest what were they?
  - gpm 1y ago
    > Out of interest what were they? The one that immediately comes to mind is cvc5... not super recently though. I suspect that "tried to" is doing a bit of work here. The fact that it was failing and swapping out probably meant that the more memory heavy g++ processes were going slower than the memory light ones, resulting in more of them running simultaneously than would likely have happened in a normal successful build. Still, this was on a system with 32GB of ram, so it was using roughly that before swapping would slow down more memory intensive processes.