> Maybe nowadays it is faster, I have not bothered since I made the RIR exercise.
Took me 18 seconds on a M4 Pro.
Please stop spreading FUD about Rust. Compile times are much better now then what they were and are constantly improving. Maybe it will never be as fast as one of those old languages that you like that nobody uses anymore but it's plenty usable.
I would gladly take one.
And the Roc team as well, maybe they would revert back their decision on moving away from Rust to Zig due to compile times.
> I would gladly take one.
Do you have 10 year old netbooks to give to everyone? because this seems to be required to have slow compile times in Rust.
> And the Roc team as well, maybe they would revert back their decision on moving away from Rust to Zig due to compile times.
More cherry picked examples, you sure love those.
Like whats the point of bringing this up? Do you want me to show you the thousands of software projects that do use rust as a counter example?
Obviously no programming language is one size fits all.
Unfortunately not all of us have an economical situation that allow us to sponsor Trump gifts every couple of years.
How many of those thousands of software projects that do use Rust, can be show as counter example to slow compilation times on hardware that common people usually buy and keep around?
Especially in those countries that are outside tier 1 in world economy, getting computers from whatever parts western no longer considers usable for their daily tasks.
Maybe they can afford to wait.
M4 pro isn't your average computer though.
But as I said, clean builds aren't the most common experience either.
It is also not normal to expect people to spend 2 000 euros to enjoy fast compilation times, when other programming languages require cheaper budgets with faster compilation times, since MS-DOS on lousy hardware from today's standards.
You don't care, other people's do, and who cares most drives adoption.