←back to thread

302 points Bogdanp | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.466s | source
Show context
AndyKelley ◴[] No.44390865[source]
My homepage takes 73ms to rebuild: 17ms to recompile the static site generator, then 56ms to run it.

    andy@bark ~/d/andrewkelley.me (master)> zig build --watch -fincremental
    Build Summary: 3/3 steps succeeded
    install success
    └─ run exe compile success 57ms MaxRSS:3M
       └─ compile exe compile Debug native success 331ms
    Build Summary: 3/3 steps succeeded
    install success
    └─ run exe compile success 56ms MaxRSS:3M
       └─ compile exe compile Debug native success 17ms
    watching 75 directories, 1 processes
replies(8): >>44390894 #>>44390942 #>>44390948 #>>44391020 #>>44391060 #>>44391265 #>>44391881 #>>44393741 #
echelon ◴[] No.44390894[source]
Zig is a small and simple language. It doesn't need a complicated compiler.

Rust is a large and robust language meant for serious systems programming. The scope of problems Rust addresses is large, and Rust seeks to be deployed to very large scale software problems.

These two are not the same and do not merit an apples to apples comparison.

edit: I made some changes to my phrasing. I described Zig as a "toy" language, which wasn't the right wording.

These languages are at different stages of maturity, have different levels of complexity, and have different customers. They shouldn't be measured against each other so superficially.

replies(2): >>44390901 #>>44391486 #
1. ummonk ◴[] No.44391486[source]
This is an amusing argument to make in favor of Rust, since it's exactly the kind of dismissive statement that Ada proponents make about other languages including Rust.