New Version of Rust Speeds Compilation With Less Debugging Info By Default (phoronix.com) 24
The Rust team released a new version Thursday — Rust 1.69.0 — boasting over over 3,000 new commits from over 500 contributors.
Phoronix highlights two new improvements: In order to speed-up compilation speeds, Rust 1.69 and moving forward debug information is no longer included in build scripts by default. Cargo will avoid emitting debug information in build scripts by default — leading to less informative backtraces in build scripts when problems arise, but faster build speeds by default. Those wanting the debug information emitted can now set the debug flag in their Cargo.toml configuration.
The Cargo build shipped by Rust 1.69 is also now capable of suggesting fixes automatically for some of the generated warnings. Cargo will also suggest using "cargo fix" / "cargo clippy --fix" when it knows the errors can be automatically fixed.
Phoronix highlights two new improvements: In order to speed-up compilation speeds, Rust 1.69 and moving forward debug information is no longer included in build scripts by default. Cargo will avoid emitting debug information in build scripts by default — leading to less informative backtraces in build scripts when problems arise, but faster build speeds by default. Those wanting the debug information emitted can now set the debug flag in their Cargo.toml configuration.
The Cargo build shipped by Rust 1.69 is also now capable of suggesting fixes automatically for some of the generated warnings. Cargo will also suggest using "cargo fix" / "cargo clippy --fix" when it knows the errors can be automatically fixed.
Automagically (Score:2)
Cargo will also suggest using "cargo fix" / "cargo clippy --fix" when it knows the errors can be automatically fixed.
So it can fix things without you learning how not to do the mistakes in the first place?
Re: (Score:3)
So it can fix things without you learning how not to do the mistakes in the first place?
Well, I mean....
The long form command they use to fix things is "cargo clippy --fix". They never learn from mistakes to begin with.....
Re: (Score:1)
Come on. Clippy is a legend, it's obvious the command would be named from it. :D
You want to talk about never learning from their mistakes, take it up with all the "Hi, what can I help you with?"-bots that keeps popping up on more and more websites. ;)
I do wonder what the thought behind those were.
"Hey, remember the clippy thingie in Word? Let's take the most irritating feature from it and implement it on our website"
Re: Automagically (Score:2)
Re: Automagically (Score:3)
It's just simple stuff. Say for example you just refactored a function to take a reference instead of a move. Rust's strict typing makes that kind of thing obvious, even to new programmers. Rather than having to go add an ampersand everywhere you called it, just one command fixes it.
"Rust" is not a good name. (Score:2, Insightful)
Suggest a better name.
Re: (Score:2)
Suggest a better name.
I don't care about names, but I am curious as to what compelled the creators to name their product after something that has decayed due to lack of maintenance and caring.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the more people ridicule the name, the more free publicity they get?
Remember the Wii?
Rust certainly feels like a language built from the ground up with with marketing in mind.
Re: (Score:3)
It is even worse than that.
The language isn't named after corroded metal.
It is named after the rust fungus [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "Rust" is not a good name. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better than the vast majority of names on the following list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"Rust" is not a good name.
Suggest a better name.
For the compiler, I suggest rc, to mirror cc.
Then the gcc version can be called grc.
The LLVM version can be called rlang.
And then nobody will have to google for whatever the heck they decided to command to compile something is.
For the English name, R is taken. They could go pirate and call it Arrr.
Ooookay. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A formal specification is a useful thing, which is why they are writing one.
It's not required for a forward compatibility guarantee, which Rust and many other languages without a formal specification have.
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly, it does something about slowness and memory usage; that's the whole point. The question is not whether, the question is how much.
The rust compiler front-end is written in Rust, but the rest of it is LLVM which is not implemented in Rust and is where the compiler spends most of it's time.
And, yes, you need to disable safety for some low level work, but you do not have to disable all safety feature -- you turn it off specifically for the parts of code that you need it, clearly delineated by a keyword
Re: (Score:1)