“tribal knowledge required to bypass it, so early in the the life of a programming language, is a really bad sign.”
and within a few replies we ended at (paraphrasing):
“Granted compilation time is incremental, libraries are only compiled once, debug mode is much faster, but it’s really going to be an issue with a huge project on absurdly obsolete hardware.”
As the author of a project that relies on 50+ projects with some massive dependencies (wgpu, Tokio, rayon), yes it can take a good long while to compile from scratch, but it’s not “hours”, and after first compile that’s all paid for going forward.
Honestly this all seems like grasping at one of Rust’s perceived weak points, but really there are so many better criticisms, I don’t know why compile time gets so much attention.
And long compile times kill the battery on the go, and cargo check hardly helps when writing GUI code.
The point I am making is Rust only for those with enough income to buy hardware powerful enough to have a usable workflow or for anyone regardless of what hardware they can afford?
As for coding on the go, classical desktops are a dying breed.
But isn't this the right trade off for something like Tokio which is at the base of applications which expect to be fast? Or else those applications wouldn't bother with async runtimes and what-have-you. There's also the fact that during the dev cycle, you'll compile tokio & friends once and be done with it. And for CI pipelines, there's caching.
I'm however not a professional developer, so I'm curious if I'm missing something.