[Elinvynia]

With Rust you get safety at compile time while avoiding memory safety issues at runtime. The compile times are objectively longer compared to most other languages. But whether this trade-off is worth it for you depends a lot on your company's CI pipeline and the skill of the developers.

[verdagon]

I'm not sure safety has anything to do with long compile times, can you enlighten?

[efnx]

There’s a lot happening at compile time that less safe languages don’t do. Type checking and type erasure, etc

[int_19h]

As the article explains, this all is a relatively minor contribution to compile times.

[pjmlp]

Ada/SPARK does it.

[verdagon]

IIRC, languages like Java and Go compile quite fast, and they are even safer than Rust...

[Gibbon1]

I feel like the long compilation times is going to be a show stopper for smaller teams/companies where you can't afford the loss in productivity.

[efnx]

Anecdotally I can tell you it does not amount to a loss in productivity. Cargo caches built deps so the cost is really only paid once in a while and the advantages of rusts type system are a boon to productivity.

[lmm]

If productivity is important, you really can't afford memory corruption bugs. Those can easily take weeks to hunt down.

[pdimitar]

It can be slightly annoying -- compared to f.ex. OCaml with its lightning-fast compiler -- but in practice incremental recompilation is much faster than a compilation from scratch so it rarely irks me that badly.