<story><title>An Intern&apos;s Experience with Rust</title><url>https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/10/16/an-interns-experience-with-rust/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Crinus</author><text>While i appreciate the type safety that Rust may provide (even if it is overblown and only just a little, it can still be useful - e.g. while i prefer C, i do like C++&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;enum class&amp;quot;), my two main issues are that it is only a single implementation (and that implementation looks is too Unix-y with the Windows versions looking bolted at the side) and -especially- &lt;i&gt;too&lt;/i&gt; slow.&lt;p&gt;I get annoyed when my C builds take more than a few seconds and a major reason i avoid C++ for my own stuff (C++&amp;#x27;s complexity is another reason) and i hear that Rust has worse compile times than C++. This is enough for me to stay away from it.&lt;p&gt;But if Rust manages to get an implementation that feels at home at Windows with a full IDE and debugger and also gets around C-like compilation speeds, then i&amp;#x27;d like to check it out.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>kbenson</author><text>&amp;gt; and also gets around C-like compilation speeds&lt;p&gt;Isn&amp;#x27;t that possibly asking for a bit much?  The Rust compiler is doing significantly more than a C compiler, so why would be expect it to have C-like speeds?  Should we not also expect C to have compile speed improvements in that period, which might leave them &lt;i&gt;relatively&lt;/i&gt; unchanged with respect to each other?&lt;p&gt;It feels sort of like you&amp;#x27;re comparing a Mercedes sedan and Land Rover.  Both very capably vehicles, but targeted to excel in slightly different circumstances, and when people suggest a Land Rover for rougher terrain, you&amp;#x27;re noting that when they can provide the same acceleration and gas mileage as the sedan then you&amp;#x27;ll be interested, which is both unlikely to happen and missing the point, since an off-road vehicle can do things a sedan just can&amp;#x27;t.  Preferring one over the other is fine, expecting one to be superior to the other in every way is a tall order.</text></comment>
<story><title>An Intern&apos;s Experience with Rust</title><url>https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2019/10/16/an-interns-experience-with-rust/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>Crinus</author><text>While i appreciate the type safety that Rust may provide (even if it is overblown and only just a little, it can still be useful - e.g. while i prefer C, i do like C++&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;enum class&amp;quot;), my two main issues are that it is only a single implementation (and that implementation looks is too Unix-y with the Windows versions looking bolted at the side) and -especially- &lt;i&gt;too&lt;/i&gt; slow.&lt;p&gt;I get annoyed when my C builds take more than a few seconds and a major reason i avoid C++ for my own stuff (C++&amp;#x27;s complexity is another reason) and i hear that Rust has worse compile times than C++. This is enough for me to stay away from it.&lt;p&gt;But if Rust manages to get an implementation that feels at home at Windows with a full IDE and debugger and also gets around C-like compilation speeds, then i&amp;#x27;d like to check it out.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>munmaek</author><text>For what it&amp;#x27;s worth, Rust will soon improve its linking stage by switching to ldd, as part of upgrading to LLVM 4.0. From what I&amp;#x27;ve read ldd can dramatically reduce the time needed.</text></comment>