6 ms·
>> Rust is notorious for its slow compile times Don't forget Haskell. And what's other... C++, OCaml, etc? I guess a language with complex/complicated design
by anta40 4mo ago
>> Rust is notorious for its slow compile times
Don't forget Haskell. And what's other... C++, OCaml, etc?
I guess a language with complex/complicated design is difficult to be compiled "blazing fast"
- wojtczyk 4mo agoRight, we can appreciate a lot of the heavy weight lifting by the compiler or blazing fast translations... in the latter case an assembler would do
- GuB-42 4mo agoRust is not alone to compile slowly. And yes, there are reasons, but if you want to pick a language to fit the Turbo Pascal vibes, that's not it. Zig and Go would probably be better modern languages for this. Also "Turbo Zig" and "Turbo Go" sound cool, "Trust" sounds too corporate :)
- fithisux 4mo agoOr Blooshed Dev-Zig Heck, the UI is in Delphi.
- pjmlp 4mo agoNot really, because contrary to Rust, Haskell, C++ and OCaml have faster alternatives, even though some people decide to ignore them to their own pain. Haskell has GHCi, where you can pre-compile modules and play around in the repl with code that is more in flow. OCaml has a bytecode interpreter, and a repl, thus you can compile only what you need, and do the full compilation for proper releases. C++, well, yes it is slow, if you don't make use of binary libraries, external templates, incremental compilation and incremental linking, parallel builds, hot code reloading (VC++ and Live++), or REPLs (ROOT/cling, Clang-Repl).
- japgolly 4mo agoScala is painfully slow to compile too