My personal experience (YMMV): Rust code takes 2x or 3x longer to write than what came before it (C in my case), but in the end you usually get something much more likely to work, so overall it's kind of a wash, and the product you get is better for customers - you basically front load the cost of development.

This is terrible for people working in commercial projects that are obsessed with time to market.

Rust developers on commercial projects are under incredible schedule pressure from day 0, where they are compared to expectations from their previous projects, and are strongly motivated to pull in anything and everything they can to save time, because re-rolling anything themselves is so damn expensive.

▲

windward an hour ago | parent [-]

In my experience Rust development is no slower than C development (in a different environment) or C++ development (in a comparable project)

	▲	ghurtado 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think they were using "writing Rust" in the most strict sense: the part of the development cycle that involves typing the majority of the code, before you really start debugging in earnest and really make things work. But their point is that "developing Rust" (as in, the entire process) ends up being a similar total effort to C, only with more up front "writing" and less work on the debugging phase.