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