←back to thread

302 points Bogdanp | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.61s | source
Show context
adastra22 ◴[] No.44390813[source]
As a former C++ developer, claims that rust compilation is slow leave me scratching my head.
replies(5): >>44390867 #>>44390918 #>>44391177 #>>44395299 #>>44403069 #
eikenberry ◴[] No.44390918[source]
Which is one of the reasons why Rust is considered to be targeting C++'s developers. C++ devs already have the Stockholm syndrome needed to tolerate the tooling.
replies(3): >>44391267 #>>44391775 #>>44392740 #
MyOutfitIsVague ◴[] No.44391267[source]
Rust's compilation is slow, but the tooling is just about the best that any programming language has.
replies(2): >>44392557 #>>44394703 #
1. adastra22 ◴[] No.44394703[source]
Slow compared to what? I’m still scraping my head at this. My cargo builds are insanely fast, never taking more than a minute or two even on large projects. The only ahead of time compiled language I’ve used with faster compilation speed is Go, and that is a language specifically designed around (and arguably crippled by) the requirement for fast compilation. Rust is comparable to C compilation, and definitely faster than C++, Haskell, Java, Fortran, Algol, and Common Lisp.
replies(3): >>44394786 #>>44400126 #>>44407046 #
2. ◴[] No.44394786[source]
3. johnisgood ◴[] No.44400126[source]
Just a few days ago I used cargo to install something. It took like two minutes at the last stage. Definitely not comparable to C or Fortran. I never had to wait that much before. With C++? Definitely. Never with C though.
4. eikenberry ◴[] No.44407046[source]
In addition to Go, off the top of my head, you have D, V-lang, Zig, Lua and every interpreted language (including Haskell and Common Lisp, as they both have interpreters). Traditional compiled languages always had terrible UX in this regard which, IMO, is why interpreted languages like Python and Ruby got so popular.