Re:What part of Rust compilation is the bottleneck?
by pjmlp on Saturday March 16, 2024 @08:03AM
(#39725149)
OCaml compiles just as fast without having to compromise on the type system.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:What part of Rust compilation is the bottleneck?
by KingOfCoders on Saturday March 16, 2024 @08:33AM
(#39725358)
Some see it as a compromising on types, I don't. After some years writing Scala code, trying to come up with even better types each day, Go to me is not a compromise but a relief.
My love for types peaked when I was in my mid-40s, now that I'm 50+ I want simple things.
Re:What part of Rust compilation is the bottleneck?
by naasking on Saturday March 16, 2024 @09:08AM
(#39725565)
I'd call that disillusionment with bad type systems, which are indeed unnecessarily complex. We have yet to achieve a typing "nirvana", but we're getting closer IMO.
Re:What part of Rust compilation is the bottleneck?
by margorczynski on Saturday March 16, 2024 @09:01AM
(#39725520)
From my experience this simplicity is something you pay the price along the way - development is harder (a good typing gives you a lot of hints about functionality and puts bounds on developers on how to use it) and more error prone (less stuff gets caught by the type checker, instead you find it out in runtime).
Of course it is good to be reasonable - some people completely fly off into the FP world and instead of actually building working stuff they think all day about some clever abstraction and types to model it.
Re:What part of Rust compilation is the bottleneck?
by pjmlp on Saturday March 16, 2024 @12:58PM
(#39727499)
I am almost 50, and my point of view on Go from 2012 has hardly changed.
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4554#comment-71504
At least it does generics now.
Re:What part of Rust compilation is the bottleneck?
by sigsev_251 on Saturday March 16, 2024 @03:20PM
(#39728682)
> At least it does generics now
Not in gccgo
Re:What part of Rust compilation is the bottleneck?
by pjmlp on Sunday March 17, 2024 @04:42AM
(#39732907)
Indeed, as you see on other remarks from me I am aware of it, my point was about the language as designed, not the implementations ecosystem.
TinyGo also doesn't do them.
Re:What part of Rust compilation is the bottleneck?
by kjksf on Saturday March 16, 2024 @08:16AM
(#39725239)
But then you have to compromise on speed of generated code, poor support of windows, number of libraries and overall ecosystem, no ability to generate standalone executables and probably more but I tried OCaml only briefly so can't speak to all of its shortcomings.
Re:What part of Rust compilation is the bottleneck?
by pjmlp on Saturday March 16, 2024 @08:24AM
(#39725301)
OCaml optimizations are certainly better than Go compiler that hardly does inlining and only recently got some PGO support, and those that care about using LLVM or GCC backends have to compromise on fronteds that still don't do generics.
Go support on Windows is also not great, plugin package doesn't work, filesystem support assumes POSIX semantics, cgo requires installing mingw.
Re:What part of Rust compilation is the bottleneck?
by sigsev_251 on Saturday March 16, 2024 @10:24AM
(#39726205)
> using LLVM backends
Wait, there is an LLVM based Go toolchain? I thought the Go crowd was known for their NIH obsession.