Re:Is Rust faster than C?
by groundzeros2015 on Wednesday January 14, 2026 @01:02PM
(#46619646)
And yet despite that theoretical limit C compiles faster than any other language. Even C++ is very fast if you are not using header-only style.
What’s better? Rust? Haskell? Swift?
It’s very hard to do multithreading at a more granular level without hitting amdahl’s law and synchronization traps.
No it doesn't, try it against a language with modules support, even the oldie Turbo Pascal for MS-DOS.
Re:Is Rust faster than C?
by groundzeros2015 on Saturday January 17, 2026 @11:20AM
(#46659238)
Turbo pascal compiles faster because of better parallelization?
It reminds me of the joke that "I can do math very fast", probed with a multiplication and immediately answering some total bollocks answer.
- "That's not even close"
- "Yeah, but it was fast"
Sure, it's not a trivial problem, but why wouldn't we want better compilation results/developer ergonomics at the price of more compiler complexity and some minimal performance penalty?
And it's not like the performance doesn't have its own set of negatives, like header-only libraries are a hack directly manifested from this compilation model.
Re:Is Rust faster than C?
by groundzeros2015 on Saturday January 17, 2026 @11:19AM
(#46659230)
your topic is shifting from multi-threading benefits in language compilation, to ergonomics of C headers.
This is a huge limitation of C's compilation model, and basically every other language since then does it differently, so not sure if that's a good example. You do want some "interconnection" between translation units, or at least less fine-grained units.