Rust-Written Coreutils 0.0.25 With Improved GNU Compatibility

[imaami]

having a single statically built binary with LTO can save a lot of space

Dynamic linking would actually save space while also not being a toolchain-wide regression of comical proportions.

[Quackdoc]

Dynamic linking would actually save space while also not being a toolchain-wide regression of comical proportions.

This isn't true. while yes you can save some space dynamic linking, it isn't as much as you save by building a single binary with LTO.

[bug77]

The downside of rust and rust programs for me is the compile time even for a simple programs it takes twice or even 3 times longer than C++ written porgrams

Newsflash: the borrow checker actually has work to do.

[brad0]

Newsflash: the borrow checker actually has work to do.

Thus what he said is true. C++ is already slow enough as it is.

[brad0]

The downside of rust and rust programs for me is the compile time even for a simple programs it takes twice or even 3 times longer than C++ written porgrams

C++ is already painfully slow enough as it is to compile. That is pretty awful.

[jacob]

Newsflash: the borrow checker actually has work to do.

Last week's This Week in Rust has an interesting blog post about this:

https://kobzol.github.io/rust/rustc/2024/03/15/rustc-what-takes-so-long.html

Contrary to a popular misconception, it's apparently not the borrow checker (or the other static checks) that takes so much time, it's the codegen.

[jacob]

C++ is already painfully slow enough as it is to compile. That is pretty awful.

It's an ongoing problem to be sure. It is true that thanks to rust-analyzer and other tools (cargo check etc) you don't recompile nearly as often as in C++, but yes, Rust's compilation times are a big pain. There are efforts to address it and while it will almost certainly never be in the same league as Go, achieving C++-like build times is a realistic goal. In the meantime, a promising and very useful project is Miri.

[swoorup]

Not sure where you got the "Rust compilation is slower than C++" from. At best, they are both on par, since Rust has incremental compilation. However bulk of the time is spent in linking.

[ayumu]

i believe there is a speed increase, the main benefit is memory safety however (less bugs), and also less bloat (gnu software is infamously spaghetti code)

And the MIT license.

[Alexmitter]

And the MIT license.

Thats a downside. It just means that overall it will get less quality contributions.