Are we talking about the same post? This is the one I’m talking about[1], and I can’t see where it’s claimed that Rust’s build times are better. Apologies if I’m missing it.

(The one reference I found to Rust’s compile times is them talking about how they had to split their Rust rewrite into 100 crates. A plain reading of this is the opposite of what you’re saying: they’re pointing out that Rust’s compile times are slower, but that this wasn’t an overriding negative.)

▲

Arainach an hour ago | parent [-]

You don't have to claim that they're better, but making a big fuss about them in Zig - to the point of maintaining a compiler fork - and then not talking about it at all in the Rust doc (where it's apparent to anyone who's used Rust that compilation there is guaranteed to be slower) is dishonest or at least massively hypocritical.

▲

cowsandmilk 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The bun team made no mention of compile times in their post. The author of this post points to other work by bun that was hardly making a big fuss. It was just a Twitter post about parallelizing some things to make builds faster.

▲

woodruffw 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Where are they making a big fuss?

▲

Arainach 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

I knew that LLMs had caused reading comprehension to tank, but I quite literally already directly answered that question - as did the original article under discussion here.

	▲	woodruffw a minute ago \| parent [-]
		You haven’t answered it, and I can’t find a fair reading that would lend itself to that interpretation either. You can easily correct me by quoting the part of the Bun post that you find to be “making a big fuss.” (Surely a relatively bland technical criticism of Zig - one that gets couched with praise - does not count as “a big fuss.”)