Comment by remus

Comment by remus a day ago

14 replies

> [some] compiled languages were already doing on PCs running at 10 MHz within the constraints of 640 KB

Many compiled languages are very slow to compile however, especially for large projects, C++ and rust being the usual examples.

adastra22 a day ago

It is weird to lump C++ and Rust together. I have used Rust code bases that compile in 2-3 minutes what a C++ compiler would take literally hours to compile.

I feel people who complain about rustc compile times must be new to using compiled languages…

  • pjmlp a day ago

    There is a way to make C++ beat Rust though.

    Make use of binary libraries, export templates, incremental compilation and linking with multiple cores, and if using VC++ or clang vLatest, modules.

    It still isn't Delphi fast, but becomes more manageable.

pjmlp a day ago

True, however there are more programming languages than only C++ and Rust.

gf000 a day ago

Well, spewing out barely-optimized machine code and having an ultra-weak type system certainly helps with speed - a la Go!

  • remus a day ago

    That's a reasonable trade-off to make for some people, no? There's plenty of work to be done where you can cope with the occasional runtime error and less then bleeding edge performance, especially if that then means wins in other areas (compile speeds, tooling). Having a variety of languages available feels like a pretty good thing to me.

    • const_cast a day ago

      But go tooling is bad. Like, really really bad.

      Sure it's good compared to like... C++. Is go actually competing with C++? From where I'm standing, no.

      But compared to what you might actually use Go for... The tooling is bad. PHP has better tooling, dotnet has better tooling, Java has better tooling.

      • tom_m 18 hours ago

        Go tooling is among the best out there. You ever see npm?

      • ponow a day ago

        Go was a response, in part, to C++, if I recall how it was described when it was introduced. That doesn't seem to be how it ended it out. Maybe it was that "systems programming language" means something different for different people.

    • gf000 a day ago

      Well, I personally would be happier with a stronger type system (e.g. java can compile just as fast, and it has a less anemic type system), but sure.

      And sure, it is welcome from a dev POV on one hand, though from an ecosystem perspective, more languages are not necessarily good as it multiplies the effort required.

      • pjmlp a day ago

        It is kind of ironic that from Go's point of view, Java's type system is PhD level of language knowledge.

        Especially given how the language was criticised back in 1996.

      • Mawr a day ago

        What do you mean by saying Java compiles just as fast? Do you mean to say that the Java->bytecode conversion is fast? Duh, it barely does anything. Go compilation generates machine code, you can't compare it to bytecode generation.

        Are Java AOT compilation times just as fast as Go?

        • gf000 a day ago

          > Duh, it barely does anything. Go compilation generates machine code, you can't compare it to bytecode generation

          Why not? Machine code is not all that special - C++ and Rust is slow due to optimizations, not for machine code as target itself. Go "barely does anything", just spits out machine code almost as is.

          Java AOT via GraalVM's native image is quite slow, but it has a different way of working (doing all the Java class loading and initialization and "baking" that into the native image).

    • Filligree a day ago

      Unfortunately the lack of abstraction and simple type system in Go makes it far _slower_ for me to code than e.g. Rust.