On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:00 PM, comex <com...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Patrick Walton <pcwal...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> I disagree. Rust doesn't compile that much slower than other languages at
>> this point.
>
> If by other languages you mean C++, C++ compile times are a huge
> turnoff for me, especially when I know that the work that
> theoretically needs to be done to compile a small incremental change
> is almost zero. Rust, which has actual modules, should be much faster
> to compile, not slower. Just my two cents.
>
> Of course, I don't know whether you're actually talking about C++;
> without experience compiling large Rust codebases, the only number
> I've gotten to know is rustc being about 4 times slower to compile an
> empty crate than clang for an empty c file (even if the latter has
> some standard #includes), but that's mostly unrelated.
A minimal program definitely doesn't compile more slowly than `clang`:
```
int main(void) {
return 0;
}
```
clang foo.c -emit-llvm 0.03s user 0.03s system 91% cpu 0.062 total
```
#[no_std];
#[start]
fn main(_: int, _: **u8) -> int {
0
}
```
rustc foo.rs --emit-llvm 0.02s user 0.01s system 91% cpu 0.025 total
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
