[dmit]

> Zig's compilation times are already terrific

In my experience, this (for now) is mostly aspirational. It's obviously a major goal, and there are clear milestones outlined on how to achieve it, but in practice the initial compile of an empty project or the excruciating pause when you `direnv allow` and ZLS needs to be (re)built are not what I'd describe as "terrific".

[schaefer]

>(re)built are not what I'd describe as "terrific".

It sounds like you are a strong candidate to try out the new improvements mentioned in this devlog and see what benefits you can get for yourself.

[epolanski]

Maybe you're right, but how many other system programming languages toolchains give you sub 50ms recompilations across millions of LoC?

[dmit]

I foresee a pjmlp comment in your near future. :)

[ksec]

Oh that is me as well :)

[epolanski]

Yeah, let's add a sprinkle of toxicity to my Saturday morning!

[Mawr]

What, you wouldn't want a condescending lecture on which exact, unpopular even at the time, languages from the 80's, which had 10% of features of Zig and ran 20x slower, also had fast compilation times? For the 1000th time? Shame on you.

[speed_spread]

I'm not pjmlp, but the cached answer is Turbo Pascal.

[wffurr]

Compared to Rust or C++?