[syockit]

I imagine the compile would be magnitudes slower than Rust or C++, and I can't really stomach slow compilers. Yesterday I was hacking on a Qt app and the time taken to rebuild after a slight change to the header is distressing (more than 5 seconds, which can afford a full rebuild on a typical C program). I'm kind of surprised that the quick sort example took only around twice to thrice as long to compile compared to the no GC approach. The example seems to be working on a compile-time defined list though. I'd like to see how it scales on arbitrary runtime-defined input.

[fluffything]

> I imagine

No need to image, the thesis mentioned in the README provides compile-time results. From no noticeable overhead to 2x larger compile-times than Rust.

Quite reasonable if you take into account that one is one person's university thesis, and the other is a project with 100s of active developers, 100s of open PRs, etc.

[TheAsprngHacker]

To my understanding skimming the paper, the analysis must compute "call contexts" of functions, which use information from call sites. I wonder if this will impede incremental compilation and modularity. As programs get bigger, perhaps this approach may not scale.