I finally gave in to the rust hype and built a new project in it (or my agent fleet did). Almost instant regret. My poor machine with just 2TB HDD and 24 cores was almost immediately crippled by agents each working in their own sandbox, each one building and compiling
Most projects my fleet works on are in other languages (TS, Go, Elixir) and can comfortably handle 10+ agents working in parallel, but not rust. I had to cap the fleet to 5 workers and build a dedicated resource monitor to step in and tidy up every time the disk almost filled up
That and general progress on building is far slower, with far more time spent building and testing than any other language I use.
Ended up rebuilding in Go, the perf gains weren't worth it
Funny to see this now. I’ve got a private branch I am in the process of shaping up this weekend to show the compiler team. For deep nested projects like rust analyzer, if you emit the meta data about function types earlier for downstream slots to use, before successful type checking, you can start other crates earlier and use all the slots you have instead of sitting around waiting for the full type checking of the bodies (which other crates largely don’t care about). Something like 40% wall time speed up, maybe 10% to 15% if you have the parallel frontend on.
I'm glad to see the donations from big companies to open source maintainers are making measurable difference to the Rust experience. Telling these companies that their employees spend 5% less time waiting for compilation might motivate future investment in people like Nick and the others mentioned.
OpenAI is a Rust Foundation platinum level donor. They gave straight cash which can go toward paying maintainers, which is better IMO. This actually made a lot of people angry because they saw it as a risk of OpenAI gaining influence or something. Can't make everyone happy.
OpenAI also hands out free subscriptions to open source maintainers: https://developers.openai.com/community/codex-for-oss They're time limited for now, but they've been pretty generous about who gets them. Anyone who can show Rust contributions would have been able to get one before.
Can't confirm this "pretty generous", many people with lots of contributions to popular projects got any from OpenAI, not even a response to their request.
I tend to disregard anyone who complains about foundational open source being funded like this. As long as the donor doesn't have dictatorial control over the product, why obsess over this?
Because not having dictatorial control doesn't protect anyone from anything; politicians take 'donations' (bribes) and then argue or enact laws for what the donor wants, no dictating involved.
Or in software terms, BigCorp sponsors you to develop an open source tool fulltime. If you make the tool more useful for them while making it more complex or worse or ignoring things for others, they might fund you next year as well. If you don't develop things that help them, they might stop and send that money elsewhere and you will need to get a normal job instead and drop your tool work to part-time. Even though they aren't dictating anything, what are you incentivised to do?
LLMs are useful in engineering even if the PRs don't include LLM-written code.
>I’m still writing all my own code and text, because (a) that’s paramount, and (b) the project policy requires it, but I had useful LLM analysis assistance on several of the PRs mentioned in this post.
This is one of the most important objectives in software today.
Rust is the best language to serialize agentic LLM output to. It's native, well constructed, low-defect due to design. It's also easy for humans to read and debug if necessary.
The biggest problem with Rust is the compile times. The cycle has to get faster. And we need to start thinking about making the artifact cache non-blocking so multiple agents can work simultaneously - that'll be a big task, but essential if we want to speed up work on one machine rather than spinning up clusters of agent sandboxes (the alternative, perhaps superior solution).
Doing stuff isn't free. For instance, Go compiles relatively quickly for a modern language, but the biggest reason for that is that it does less stuff than most compilers... less optimization, less checking, and some stuff built into the language to avoid some of the problems with having to read lots of headers just to compile a file and other ways of doing less stuff, but mostly the key is it does less stuff, in both the good and bad senses of that.
If you want something like Rust that offers guarantees and checks and cross-checks by the boatload, it adds up. Macros, monomorphization, implicit code generation with traits and all those other things add up too. And you can't always get O(n) or O(n log n) code to implement those checks. Maybe it can be sped up and maybe there's tricks here or there, but at the Pareto frontier, a language that has more checks will be slower to compile than one that has fewer.
And that's not a bad thing or a deficit in Rust, it's just the nature of the beast.
Rust wants badly to have its cake and eat it too. I get it, but it's not the sensibilities I have. The rustc compiler, if it really can achieve everything all at once, will be a beast like none other, making C++ compilers look simple by comparison.
I'd love something halfway. Go is maybe a bit radical in some regards, but also, with the news of the new SIMD package for Go, it has occured to me just how little I missed having things like, say, autovectorization.
(I know also that some people have tried halfway, but the big thing is figuring out how to keep a relatively simple type system that can still support a borrow checker. Even if there is some middleground, is it truly worth it? As nice as it sounds, I've been more skeptical. Go seems to exist in a very narrow space where its simplifications barely can be made to work.)
Instead of Go, you could have reached out to complex languages with fast compilation times like D, OCaml, Haskell, Ada, Delphi, C++.
All of them have alternative implementations with fast compilation times.
D, use dmd for fast development workflows, gdc or ldc for the ultimate performance at the expense of compilation times.
OCaml, use the REPL or bytecode interpreter for fast development times, the full blow compiler for ultimate performance.
Haskell, use the REPL, GHCi for the fast development cycles, GHC for the release build.
Ada and Delphi, have had fast implementations since forever, although Ada/SPARK is indeed somehow expensive.
C++, yes it isn't a mistake. Use Live++, VS hot reload, coupled with binary libraries, or a REPL like CINT (nee ROOT), binary libraries for dependencies, incremental compilation and incremental linking for the development workflow.
The problem with Rust isn't the language itself, rather the ecosystem currently lacking such kind of options being available.
And since you bring up Go and contrast the compile time with Rust, it's been experienced at Google (and also Volvo and other places) that Rust and Go teams are as productive whereas C++ is less than half as productive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=27012&v=6mZRWFQRvmw&feature=...
So the focus on Rust compile time is misplaced. It's not a big deal in terms of overall productivity.
I don't think that follows - just that compile times aren't the only thing that matters. Maybe rust could be twice as productive as go if compile times went to zero for instance (or maybe not - just disputing that the evidence proves the claim here).
But it can't go to zero, that was the point -- at some level you have to pay for what you get. I'm not saying the compile times couldn't be better, but Rust can't be Go in terms of compile times if it wants to offer the guarantees and options it does. Meanwhile if Go wants to offer more options and stronger guarantees, it won't be able to preserve the short compile times everyone points to.
The Cranelift backend is extremely fast. Most of the slowness is all the crazy optimizations that LLVM does + other things (generating debug info etc).
For symbol heavy projects, linking is a surprising bottleneck.
Some ideas to speed up compilation by not evaluating items that are not used might pan out significantly for big crates in your dep tree (that behavior might never be stable because that would allow items with compile errors in a crate that would still let your application compile, which is against the Rust approach). The same work to do that would also allow overlapping of crate evaluation between different rustc instances called by cargo, as it would require partial evaluation of crates (to do name res only and gather the symbols needed from its deps).
Another thing is that stable rust doesn't treat macros as idempotent (because that wasn't a requirement from the start, there are crates that do dynamic IO to generate types), but if they are then incr comp can be faster by not evaluating them unnecessarily.
I know people are working on a bunch of different strategies to improve both first and incremental compile times, and I'm looking forward to the fruit of their labor.
Compile times are rarely the bottleneck for me, but that doesn't mean I won't welcome any improvements on that front.
> For symbol heavy projects, linking is a surprising bottleneck.
Is that still true with modern linkers like `wild`? Seems like it can link Chromium in 1-2s.
> Another thing is that stable rust doesn't treat macros as idempotent
This seems absolutely insane to me given how pervasive macros are in Rust (I wonder how much of incremental compilation time is just repeated serde derives?). Obviously we can't just blindly treat all macros as idempotent, but an opt-in attribute on a macros that pinky-promises that it is seems like it ought to be pretty easy to implement?
Maybe somebody's looked into it and it doesn't help much? But I've heard (unverified) rumours of the opposite.
> Is that still true with modern linkers like `wild`? Seems like it can link Chromium in 1-2s.
Wild improves things significantly, but it really depends on the kind of project. For some a third of the time can be linking. And not everyone configures their environment to use a different linker. Another thing that can easily improve performance is changing the global allocator, but I've seen teams that measured 10% perf improvements in their own metrics decide against going with anything other than the "default".
I fully expect that if wild delivers an effective incremental linking architecture, then rustc will be able to produce the patches directly (instead of wild having to produce patches from two versions of the object files), which would mean both that rustc is producing less LLVM bytecode and that wild gets to do what it (will) do best and make linking as fast as mechanically possible.
> This seems absolutely insane to me given how pervasive macros are in Rust
Part of the problem I see is that crates will have to opt-in (and we might be able to change the default over an edition boundary) to get the perf benefit, and it might require a granularity lower than "a crate" (which would complicate implementation). I haven't seen additional discussions around these design considerations (needed to stabilize), which will need to happen before people can see progress.
Sadly, Rust is, like many open source projects, a show-up-o-cracy: you need a motivated (group of?) individual(s) to deliver a feature to fruition, and if the person driving a feature is fine with using nightly for their purposes, and only needs a subset of a feature, they will drive the feature to that state (lets say 80% completion), and then the feature will linger (until someone else with enough motivation to see the other 80% through shows up). This is exacerbated because the project is unwilling to have 80% solutions on stable unless the state is very clearly not going to preclude other future work, or the path to completion is 100% visible (but if that were the case, then it would have been completed already). So we end up with situations like the Allocator APIs.
Zero-cost abstractions aren't zero cost in compilation time. High-level abstractions translate to a lot of boilerplate that the compiler has to optimize out.
In unoptimized builds often the linker is the bottleneck. Rust/Cargo can parallelize most of the build, generating tons of code and debug info, but then the poor linker has to consume all of it at once. The object/exe formats were designed in ancient times, so they're hard to build incrementally or in parallel (some linkers are trying).
Is there any experimentation with new ABIs? I mean certain linker flags like --f-lto literally hijack the linker protocol to dump an AST into the backend.
At least for the fully static binary part of rust, there should be some optimizations there w.r.t. compilation. Sure you're not going to interface with shared libraries well but maybe a small experimental feature for fully owned projects? Idk.
I once heard (and don't know if it's still true) that the biggest compile-time sinks are macros and codegen.
Both are kind of outside the Rust compiler's influence. Macros can be almost arbitrarily complex: you pay for what you order. Codegen is LLVM, and that's a fixed choice. You can use Cranelift to get around it, but then you pay elsewhere.
Also, generics and monomorphization regularly come up in these discussion, while common wisdom seems to be that cost for the additional static analysis over other languages like C++ is no a major contributor.
Regardless, it's nice to see performance improvements in the compiler, even if you have to cooperate to benefit from them (e.g. by keeping your macros light and use less generics).
First of all, the fact that the article talks about "speeding up" the rust compiler doesn't automatically mean that the compiler is "slow"[0].
Now, is rustc slower than e.g. clang? by how much? why?
Those are different (and complicated) questions. It really depends on what you're compiling, but I'd say rustc can be 1-5x slower (maybe more at times?).
The reasons are many and varied, but in general rust compilation is slower because the compiler is doing way more things compared to C (monomorphization, complex trait resolution + type inference, borrow checker..)
[0]: Also I'd argue that "slow" without a concrete point of reference is a meaningless term in this context.
The go compiler is considered fast, yet Google spends effort speeding up the go compiler. Not to the same extent, but Google has a lot of go code, so it does make a difference.
Ultimately it's the fact that compile time was not a first-class consideration during the design of Rust's important features. There's only so much you can do to mitigate the consequences.
Its similar to C++ compilers, there is no one reason. It is a language that tries to optimize a lot, its a big language, it does safety checks, it uses llvm which is a bit slow, its a language that makes use of generics which generate extra code etc etc.
C++ compilers have it better, despite the fame, because on the C++ world, people like their binary libraries (not compiling the world from scratch on each git clone), there better support for incremental compilation, and incremental linking, there are interpreters and hot code reload tooling available.
This is not actually the main reason, most of the time.
Generics/monomorphization and how iterators work results in a lot of compiler bytecode that has to be churned through. More bytecode = longer compilation. It increases the size of the (debug) binaries, the debuginfo in general, causes performance issues with debug binaries in some situations unless you bump the optimization level, causes more IO, etc.
It's unlikely that many people are using Rust without using Option<T> or Result<T, U> a fair bit. Idiomatic Rust fundamentally uses a lot of generics. And a basic for loop expands into quite a lot of intermediate representation due to Iterator.
Other languages support generics, monomorphization, and iterators (e.g. Zig or D), but they're not as slow as Rust to compile, what's the reason for that?
It's likely easier to answer for specific languages
All three of those words can mean "just like Rust" but equally "Not at all like Rust" for different languages.
Two examples to contrast: In C++ the iterators are basically a pointer analog (in some cases they're just literally pointers) and that's a very difference "feature" but it's still definitely iterators. In Ginger Bill's Odin, the iterators are a function, possibly generic, which returns a pair, the next item and a boolean telling you whether the iterator was exhausted.
Trait solving isn't a bottleneck for Rust compilation unless you're doing some extremely cursed things like trying to implement Doom in the type system. At the end of the day it's still mostly that Rust just generates a ton of IR for LLVM to chew on (because of monomorphization), then LLVM takes a while to process all of it (because LLVM is designed primarily to produce high-performance code, often resulting in reasonable tradeoffs against compilation speed), and then the linker takes a while to connect it all together. With an alternative backend to LLVM (e.g. Cranelift) you could choose to design it with a greater emphasis on compilation speed (likely trading off generated code quality in the process). And with a more radical vertically-integrated model where Rust controls the linker you could do in-place linking and nearly completely skip the final step (at least for debug builds), but that's a big change compared to the classic C-style build model.
I am experimenting with this in my project right now. I haven't reached a verdict yet, but in theory it sounds good. I think you're still paying the linking cost though?
Splitting out a project into multiple crates reduces what needs to be recompiled during development. I tend to break out areas of my application that aren't going to change regularly so I'm only having to rebuild the main application.
In a production scenario where you're probably building your application in some CI environment, unless you cache the release build artifacts to re-use when applicable, the entire project will be rebuilt every run.
Yes this seems like the main way to go. With dependency injection using "dyn" traits on top of that, it seems that this mostly solves the compilation issues with Rust. It might be better for tests and agents to split code in small chunks too.
I've moved from Rust to Go for most things because in the era of agents, being able to iterate quickly on a project is a huge advantage and Rust is way, way slower than Go for compilation. There are times when Rust is more appropriate, but for the vast majority of things Go is perfectly fine.
btw. That could actually make it slower to compile. The compiler uses the orphan rule to short circuit some checks IIRC.
Nevertheless, people in the project are trying to figuring out a way to relax the rule while still maintaining coherence, so this might happen some day.
Rust doesn't let you write an impl a trait that wasn't declared in your crate for a type that wasn't declared in your crate. At least one of the two needs to be locally declared. This makes splitting projects into multiple crates harder than it could be, but on the other hand it makes the crates ecosystem less brittle than it otherwise would be.
Some people propose relaxing this rule for "workspaces" (local projects with multiple crates that are not published individually). I haven't researched whether that would be technically feasible.
Very cool projects! I agree, desktop apps are one of the areas that Rust beats Go. It's too bad though, since I feel anything with a heavy GUI like this can benefit from a rapid iteration cycle which is painful with Rust.
Incremental seems to keep winning the easy wins, so the interesting part is whether the remaining compile-time still lives in the same places as last year.
The EverInitializedPlaces example really stands out. Going from ~1.5M to ~90K apply_effects_in_block calls by changing the CFG traversal is a reminder that the biggest compiler optimizations often come from changing the algorithm, not optimizing the hot loop itself.
It also seems like the new Polonius/trait-solver work is pushing compiler performance toward a more interesting problem: doing expensive analysis only when it is actually needed.
4.57% mean wall-time reduction across 629 benchmarks in two months is pretty remarkable. Great progress.
> reminder that the biggest compiler optimizations often come from changing the algorithm, not optimizing the hot loop itself.
Isn't this true for most optimizations, not just in compilers? My usual goto process for optimizing is "Find stuff we're doing that we don't have to do, re-evaluate what data structures we use and then re-evaluate what algorithms we use" basically, with minor changes depending on the results. Served me well so far, and haven't (intentionally) written any compilers.
I finally gave in to the rust hype and built a new project in it (or my agent fleet did). Almost instant regret. My poor machine with just 2TB HDD and 24 cores was almost immediately crippled by agents each working in their own sandbox, each one building and compiling
Most projects my fleet works on are in other languages (TS, Go, Elixir) and can comfortably handle 10+ agents working in parallel, but not rust. I had to cap the fleet to 5 workers and build a dedicated resource monitor to step in and tidy up every time the disk almost filled up
That and general progress on building is far slower, with far more time spent building and testing than any other language I use.
Ended up rebuilding in Go, the perf gains weren't worth it
first time i've seen rust's compile performance actually act as a filter haha
Funny to see this now. I’ve got a private branch I am in the process of shaping up this weekend to show the compiler team. For deep nested projects like rust analyzer, if you emit the meta data about function types earlier for downstream slots to use, before successful type checking, you can start other crates earlier and use all the slots you have instead of sitting around waiting for the full type checking of the bodies (which other crates largely don’t care about). Something like 40% wall time speed up, maybe 10% to 15% if you have the parallel frontend on.
I'm glad to see the donations from big companies to open source maintainers are making measurable difference to the Rust experience. Telling these companies that their employees spend 5% less time waiting for compilation might motivate future investment in people like Nick and the others mentioned.
Really nice to see that the 5% speedup is despite making the borrow checker better, validating code that previously would have tripped it up.
Sometimes we really can have our cake and eat it too.
I'm surprised the OpenAI Codex team doesn't donate like 10B tokens or something to the Rust team for performance
OpenAI is a Rust Foundation platinum level donor. They gave straight cash which can go toward paying maintainers, which is better IMO. This actually made a lot of people angry because they saw it as a risk of OpenAI gaining influence or something. Can't make everyone happy.
OpenAI also hands out free subscriptions to open source maintainers: https://developers.openai.com/community/codex-for-oss They're time limited for now, but they've been pretty generous about who gets them. Anyone who can show Rust contributions would have been able to get one before.
Can't confirm this "pretty generous", many people with lots of contributions to popular projects got any from OpenAI, not even a response to their request.
I tend to disregard anyone who complains about foundational open source being funded like this. As long as the donor doesn't have dictatorial control over the product, why obsess over this?
Because not having dictatorial control doesn't protect anyone from anything; politicians take 'donations' (bribes) and then argue or enact laws for what the donor wants, no dictating involved.
Or in software terms, BigCorp sponsors you to develop an open source tool fulltime. If you make the tool more useful for them while making it more complex or worse or ignoring things for others, they might fund you next year as well. If you don't develop things that help them, they might stop and send that money elsewhere and you will need to get a normal job instead and drop your tool work to part-time. Even though they aren't dictating anything, what are you incentivised to do?
That's awesome
LLM written code is disallowed by the rust project policy
https://forge.rust-lang.org/policies/llm-usage.html
LLMs are useful in engineering even if the PRs don't include LLM-written code.
>I’m still writing all my own code and text, because (a) that’s paramount, and (b) the project policy requires it, but I had useful LLM analysis assistance on several of the PRs mentioned in this post.
from the article
It doesn't seem to be quite that simple?
https://forge.rust-lang.org/policies/llm-usage.html#experime...
Both OpenAI and Anthropic have robust programs for free tokens that you can apply to if you are a significant enough oss maintainer.
What you suggest may thus be more or less already happening.
This is one of the most important objectives in software today.
Rust is the best language to serialize agentic LLM output to. It's native, well constructed, low-defect due to design. It's also easy for humans to read and debug if necessary.
The biggest problem with Rust is the compile times. The cycle has to get faster. And we need to start thinking about making the artifact cache non-blocking so multiple agents can work simultaneously - that'll be a big task, but essential if we want to speed up work on one machine rather than spinning up clusters of agent sandboxes (the alternative, perhaps superior solution).
If you have fast enough hardware then Rust compile times are already not that big of a deal.
Why is the compiler slow in the first place? I have no rust knowledge, how slow us slow, lets say in comparison to a c compiler?
What is the performance killer?
Doing stuff isn't free. For instance, Go compiles relatively quickly for a modern language, but the biggest reason for that is that it does less stuff than most compilers... less optimization, less checking, and some stuff built into the language to avoid some of the problems with having to read lots of headers just to compile a file and other ways of doing less stuff, but mostly the key is it does less stuff, in both the good and bad senses of that.
If you want something like Rust that offers guarantees and checks and cross-checks by the boatload, it adds up. Macros, monomorphization, implicit code generation with traits and all those other things add up too. And you can't always get O(n) or O(n log n) code to implement those checks. Maybe it can be sped up and maybe there's tricks here or there, but at the Pareto frontier, a language that has more checks will be slower to compile than one that has fewer.
And that's not a bad thing or a deficit in Rust, it's just the nature of the beast.
Rust wants badly to have its cake and eat it too. I get it, but it's not the sensibilities I have. The rustc compiler, if it really can achieve everything all at once, will be a beast like none other, making C++ compilers look simple by comparison.
I'd love something halfway. Go is maybe a bit radical in some regards, but also, with the news of the new SIMD package for Go, it has occured to me just how little I missed having things like, say, autovectorization.
(I know also that some people have tried halfway, but the big thing is figuring out how to keep a relatively simple type system that can still support a borrow checker. Even if there is some middleground, is it truly worth it? As nice as it sounds, I've been more skeptical. Go seems to exist in a very narrow space where its simplifications barely can be made to work.)
Nah, the only reason is lack of tooling.
Instead of Go, you could have reached out to complex languages with fast compilation times like D, OCaml, Haskell, Ada, Delphi, C++.
All of them have alternative implementations with fast compilation times.
D, use dmd for fast development workflows, gdc or ldc for the ultimate performance at the expense of compilation times.
OCaml, use the REPL or bytecode interpreter for fast development times, the full blow compiler for ultimate performance.
Haskell, use the REPL, GHCi for the fast development cycles, GHC for the release build.
Ada and Delphi, have had fast implementations since forever, although Ada/SPARK is indeed somehow expensive.
C++, yes it isn't a mistake. Use Live++, VS hot reload, coupled with binary libraries, or a REPL like CINT (nee ROOT), binary libraries for dependencies, incremental compilation and incremental linking for the development workflow.
The problem with Rust isn't the language itself, rather the ecosystem currently lacking such kind of options being available.
Dlang is my weapon of choice and I prefer it to rust.
Yeah doing optimizations in a compiler on things like loops, addition, or string layouts is never free.
And since you bring up Go and contrast the compile time with Rust, it's been experienced at Google (and also Volvo and other places) that Rust and Go teams are as productive whereas C++ is less than half as productive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=27012&v=6mZRWFQRvmw&feature=...
So the focus on Rust compile time is misplaced. It's not a big deal in terms of overall productivity.
I don't think that follows - just that compile times aren't the only thing that matters. Maybe rust could be twice as productive as go if compile times went to zero for instance (or maybe not - just disputing that the evidence proves the claim here).
But it can't go to zero, that was the point -- at some level you have to pay for what you get. I'm not saying the compile times couldn't be better, but Rust can't be Go in terms of compile times if it wants to offer the guarantees and options it does. Meanwhile if Go wants to offer more options and stronger guarantees, it won't be able to preserve the short compile times everyone points to.
The Cranelift backend is extremely fast. Most of the slowness is all the crazy optimizations that LLVM does + other things (generating debug info etc).
For symbol heavy projects, linking is a surprising bottleneck.
Some ideas to speed up compilation by not evaluating items that are not used might pan out significantly for big crates in your dep tree (that behavior might never be stable because that would allow items with compile errors in a crate that would still let your application compile, which is against the Rust approach). The same work to do that would also allow overlapping of crate evaluation between different rustc instances called by cargo, as it would require partial evaluation of crates (to do name res only and gather the symbols needed from its deps).
Another thing is that stable rust doesn't treat macros as idempotent (because that wasn't a requirement from the start, there are crates that do dynamic IO to generate types), but if they are then incr comp can be faster by not evaluating them unnecessarily.
I know people are working on a bunch of different strategies to improve both first and incremental compile times, and I'm looking forward to the fruit of their labor.
Compile times are rarely the bottleneck for me, but that doesn't mean I won't welcome any improvements on that front.
> For symbol heavy projects, linking is a surprising bottleneck.
Is that still true with modern linkers like `wild`? Seems like it can link Chromium in 1-2s.
> Another thing is that stable rust doesn't treat macros as idempotent
This seems absolutely insane to me given how pervasive macros are in Rust (I wonder how much of incremental compilation time is just repeated serde derives?). Obviously we can't just blindly treat all macros as idempotent, but an opt-in attribute on a macros that pinky-promises that it is seems like it ought to be pretty easy to implement?
Maybe somebody's looked into it and it doesn't help much? But I've heard (unverified) rumours of the opposite.
> Is that still true with modern linkers like `wild`? Seems like it can link Chromium in 1-2s.
Wild improves things significantly, but it really depends on the kind of project. For some a third of the time can be linking. And not everyone configures their environment to use a different linker. Another thing that can easily improve performance is changing the global allocator, but I've seen teams that measured 10% perf improvements in their own metrics decide against going with anything other than the "default".
I fully expect that if wild delivers an effective incremental linking architecture, then rustc will be able to produce the patches directly (instead of wild having to produce patches from two versions of the object files), which would mean both that rustc is producing less LLVM bytecode and that wild gets to do what it (will) do best and make linking as fast as mechanically possible.
> This seems absolutely insane to me given how pervasive macros are in Rust
There was some work done on this front, but I haven't kept up to date on the current status of that. There was a PR showing promise https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129102 (later landed as https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/145354, 10% on a specific serde-heavy crate, reports of 32% improvements in the original PR). The tracking issue doesn't have any updates https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/151364, but you can try out nightly with -Zcache-proc-macros to see what the effect could be on your projects.
Part of the problem I see is that crates will have to opt-in (and we might be able to change the default over an edition boundary) to get the perf benefit, and it might require a granularity lower than "a crate" (which would complicate implementation). I haven't seen additional discussions around these design considerations (needed to stabilize), which will need to happen before people can see progress.
Sadly, Rust is, like many open source projects, a show-up-o-cracy: you need a motivated (group of?) individual(s) to deliver a feature to fruition, and if the person driving a feature is fine with using nightly for their purposes, and only needs a subset of a feature, they will drive the feature to that state (lets say 80% completion), and then the feature will linger (until someone else with enough motivation to see the other 80% through shows up). This is exacerbated because the project is unwilling to have 80% solutions on stable unless the state is very clearly not going to preclude other future work, or the path to completion is 100% visible (but if that were the case, then it would have been completed already). So we end up with situations like the Allocator APIs.
Cranelift's biggest blocker for me is that it completely breaks debuggers:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rustc_codegen_cranelift/issues/...
Zero-cost abstractions aren't zero cost in compilation time. High-level abstractions translate to a lot of boilerplate that the compiler has to optimize out.
In unoptimized builds often the linker is the bottleneck. Rust/Cargo can parallelize most of the build, generating tons of code and debug info, but then the poor linker has to consume all of it at once. The object/exe formats were designed in ancient times, so they're hard to build incrementally or in parallel (some linkers are trying).
Is there any experimentation with new ABIs? I mean certain linker flags like --f-lto literally hijack the linker protocol to dump an AST into the backend.
At least for the fully static binary part of rust, there should be some optimizations there w.r.t. compilation. Sure you're not going to interface with shared libraries well but maybe a small experimental feature for fully owned projects? Idk.
I once heard (and don't know if it's still true) that the biggest compile-time sinks are macros and codegen.
Both are kind of outside the Rust compiler's influence. Macros can be almost arbitrarily complex: you pay for what you order. Codegen is LLVM, and that's a fixed choice. You can use Cranelift to get around it, but then you pay elsewhere.
Also, generics and monomorphization regularly come up in these discussion, while common wisdom seems to be that cost for the additional static analysis over other languages like C++ is no a major contributor.
Regardless, it's nice to see performance improvements in the compiler, even if you have to cooperate to benefit from them (e.g. by keeping your macros light and use less generics).
First of all, the fact that the article talks about "speeding up" the rust compiler doesn't automatically mean that the compiler is "slow"[0].
Now, is rustc slower than e.g. clang? by how much? why?
Those are different (and complicated) questions. It really depends on what you're compiling, but I'd say rustc can be 1-5x slower (maybe more at times?).
The reasons are many and varied, but in general rust compilation is slower because the compiler is doing way more things compared to C (monomorphization, complex trait resolution + type inference, borrow checker..)
[0]: Also I'd argue that "slow" without a concrete point of reference is a meaningless term in this context.
> the fact that the article talks about "speeding up" the rust compiler doesn't automatically mean that the compiler is "slow"
Well, if it weren't "slow" for some definition of "slow", nobody would bother speeding it up, would they?
The go compiler is considered fast, yet Google spends effort speeding up the go compiler. Not to the same extent, but Google has a lot of go code, so it does make a difference.
Ultimately it's the fact that compile time was not a first-class consideration during the design of Rust's important features. There's only so much you can do to mitigate the consequences.
Its similar to C++ compilers, there is no one reason. It is a language that tries to optimize a lot, its a big language, it does safety checks, it uses llvm which is a bit slow, its a language that makes use of generics which generate extra code etc etc.
C++ compilers have it better, despite the fame, because on the C++ world, people like their binary libraries (not compiling the world from scratch on each git clone), there better support for incremental compilation, and incremental linking, there are interpreters and hot code reload tooling available.
> there better support for incremental compilation
What do you mean by this?
It's doing static analysis that many other languages don't do at compile time.
This is not actually the main reason, most of the time.
Generics/monomorphization and how iterators work results in a lot of compiler bytecode that has to be churned through. More bytecode = longer compilation. It increases the size of the (debug) binaries, the debuginfo in general, causes performance issues with debug binaries in some situations unless you bump the optimization level, causes more IO, etc.
If you don't use generics and monomorphization, then what explains it?
It's unlikely that many people are using Rust without using Option<T> or Result<T, U> a fair bit. Idiomatic Rust fundamentally uses a lot of generics. And a basic for loop expands into quite a lot of intermediate representation due to Iterator.
Other languages support generics, monomorphization, and iterators (e.g. Zig or D), but they're not as slow as Rust to compile, what's the reason for that?
It's likely easier to answer for specific languages
All three of those words can mean "just like Rust" but equally "Not at all like Rust" for different languages.
Two examples to contrast: In C++ the iterators are basically a pointer analog (in some cases they're just literally pointers) and that's a very difference "feature" but it's still definitely iterators. In Ginger Bill's Odin, the iterators are a function, possibly generic, which returns a pair, the next item and a boolean telling you whether the iterator was exhausted.
Zig has their own backend, monomorphization is afaik slow because LLVM itself.
On top the borrow checker and other features are non-existent in these languages.
AFAIK it's because of trait solving. And also not every language does monomorphization.
Trait solving isn't a bottleneck for Rust compilation unless you're doing some extremely cursed things like trying to implement Doom in the type system. At the end of the day it's still mostly that Rust just generates a ton of IR for LLVM to chew on (because of monomorphization), then LLVM takes a while to process all of it (because LLVM is designed primarily to produce high-performance code, often resulting in reasonable tradeoffs against compilation speed), and then the linker takes a while to connect it all together. With an alternative backend to LLVM (e.g. Cranelift) you could choose to design it with a greater emphasis on compilation speed (likely trading off generated code quality in the process). And with a more radical vertically-integrated model where Rust controls the linker you could do in-place linking and nearly completely skip the final step (at least for debug builds), but that's a big change compared to the classic C-style build model.
Not sure why you are being downvoted here.
Biggest win for me was splitting one fat crate into three, parallelism got real.
I am experimenting with this in my project right now. I haven't reached a verdict yet, but in theory it sounds good. I think you're still paying the linking cost though?
Yes.
Splitting out a project into multiple crates reduces what needs to be recompiled during development. I tend to break out areas of my application that aren't going to change regularly so I'm only having to rebuild the main application.
In a production scenario where you're probably building your application in some CI environment, unless you cache the release build artifacts to re-use when applicable, the entire project will be rebuilt every run.
Yes this seems like the main way to go. With dependency injection using "dyn" traits on top of that, it seems that this mostly solves the compilation issues with Rust. It might be better for tests and agents to split code in small chunks too.
Oh man just miseed it, October already.
I've moved from Rust to Go for most things because in the era of agents, being able to iterate quickly on a project is a huge advantage and Rust is way, way slower than Go for compilation. There are times when Rust is more appropriate, but for the vast majority of things Go is perfectly fine.
I nearly did this, but then I swapped to writing native desktop apps and egui - Rust is still worth it.
I've stopped using Tauri and gone with 100% egui. It's cross platform and excellent, and if you give it design constraints it will look beautiful.
Check out my 100% adobe clean room reimplementations:
https://github.com/storytold/filmcraft
https://github.com/storytold/photocraft
https://github.com/storytold/drawcraft (going to rename this vectorcraft)
The #1 thing for the Rust project to do is make Rust faster to compile.
Rust is the agentic AI language. It just needs to lean in and go faster.
> The #1 thing for the Rust project to do is make Rust faster to compile.
#0 get rid of the orphan rule
btw. That could actually make it slower to compile. The compiler uses the orphan rule to short circuit some checks IIRC.
Nevertheless, people in the project are trying to figuring out a way to relax the rule while still maintaining coherence, so this might happen some day.
What's the orphan rule?
Rust doesn't let you write an impl a trait that wasn't declared in your crate for a type that wasn't declared in your crate. At least one of the two needs to be locally declared. This makes splitting projects into multiple crates harder than it could be, but on the other hand it makes the crates ecosystem less brittle than it otherwise would be.
Some people propose relaxing this rule for "workspaces" (local projects with multiple crates that are not published individually). I haven't researched whether that would be technically feasible.
Very cool projects! I agree, desktop apps are one of the areas that Rust beats Go. It's too bad though, since I feel anything with a heavy GUI like this can benefit from a rapid iteration cycle which is painful with Rust.
Wow those are some nice applications! Thanks for sharing this!
These are great
Incremental seems to keep winning the easy wins, so the interesting part is whether the remaining compile-time still lives in the same places as last year.
Where I live it's October already will this work now
The EverInitializedPlaces example really stands out. Going from ~1.5M to ~90K apply_effects_in_block calls by changing the CFG traversal is a reminder that the biggest compiler optimizations often come from changing the algorithm, not optimizing the hot loop itself.
It also seems like the new Polonius/trait-solver work is pushing compiler performance toward a more interesting problem: doing expensive analysis only when it is actually needed.
4.57% mean wall-time reduction across 629 benchmarks in two months is pretty remarkable. Great progress.
> reminder that the biggest compiler optimizations often come from changing the algorithm, not optimizing the hot loop itself.
Isn't this true for most optimizations, not just in compilers? My usual goto process for optimizing is "Find stuff we're doing that we don't have to do, re-evaluate what data structures we use and then re-evaluate what algorithms we use" basically, with minor changes depending on the results. Served me well so far, and haven't (intentionally) written any compilers.
This isn't a human you are asking your question to.
Gonna have to name my next project Penelope Hammertime, or at least Pineapple Häagen-Dazs.