A practical comparison of build and test speed between C++ and Rust
Very thorough write-up, and an objective comparison.<p>I would like to mention my subjective concerns for Rust. I hope the Rust community can think me as a canary who is from the C++ world. I am desperately looking for an alternative to C++, and I am a mid-weight C++ programmer. And here is what Rust could face down the line (remember, in early days C++ too was a grockable language and hence its popularity):<p>0. Rust&#x27;s C++ problem: Learning curve. From the get go if there is murmur that Rust has a learning curve then think what will happen when Rust reaches the maturity of C++.<p>1. Rust&#x27;s NPM problem: supply-chain. If I decide to use npm, and use the npm toolchain to download a project then to my horror it downloads god knows what. Lots of dependency hierarchies, some of them have not even reached 1.0. This raises the concern for supply-chain attacks. Rust with the aim of &quot;boosting developer productivity&quot; just decided to follow the path of all those who are susceptible to supply-chain attacks.<p>2. Rust&#x27;s Haskell problem. Haskell is a very beautiful language. Even then it has not reached the level of adoption of other popular languages. It has nothing to do with the language, but some in the community who have a tendency to project a coolness level by saying something like &quot;A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors&quot;. What that ultimately does is alienate lot of software developers. Early Rust evangelist tried very hard to project Rust as having a very welcoming community, but if acronyms and terms from category theory and lambda calculus, that are alien to most developers, are thrown around without taking into consideration the larger development community then I fear that Rust will go the Haskell or OCaml way i.e it will become a niche language with small community.<p>Just 2cents from an average everyday software developer.