[rabito]

Ah, yes, that was probably it. I stopped looking into Rust's Futures pretty much as soon as I noticed how heavyweight the required runtime is, which seemed ridiculous to me, since Futures are so simple conceptually. I have to look into this again.

In general, Rust's big binaries are one of the things that puts me off the most. Even dynamic linking often doesn't help much. Then again, if a few MB, which is a rounding error nowadays, is among the worst I can think of, that's actually pretty amazing ;).

[bluejekyll]

When Rust switched to the system allocator by default, that slimmed down the minimum size quite a bit. In addition to that, where size matters, there are some articles about how to slim it down even more, here's an example: https://github.com/johnthagen/min-sized-rust

[rabito]

Thanks for the link! I knew about strip, which helps a lot, but the other options look promising as well.

I really care about binary size, since for short running programs, or when startup latency is important it can actually be much faster in real time to have less, but slower code. Especially so on a slow HDD like in my laptop. Loading a few MB when it's under heavy load can take a few seconds.

Edit: Wow, LTO makes a huge difference. Almost a 40% smaller in my case AND it's faster. Really excited to try xargo now.