Hacker News Reader

This ethos played out in the C++ community 5-ish years ago. It turned into a compiler with quadratic behavior, and eventually many people who didn't care at all about compiler performance cared a lot.

It turns out that compiler speed makes development faster, keeps people interested in the language, and ultimately allows more iterations before release (which can be better for speed and safety than throwing in a bunch of extra compile steps).

View on HN

You misread my comment. I didn't say it was useless, I said there are things with higher priority. And well… unlike Rust, C++ sucked at some of those things too, this I think makes them different.

Rust offers a better trade-off between compilation time and other parameters, than C++.

They didn't say it was useless either; they also said it wasn't a high priority. Developer velocity and ergonomics should always be a high priority for compiler writers.

"High" as in "higher than runtime speed, safety, abstractions, plugin system"? Where would you put it if you had to rank compilation speed with other criteria?

And let's admit even though Rust compilation speed could use some improvement, it's not terrible.

I re-read it. Yes, they're not saying it's useless, but then what are they objecting to?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com