HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
quick-lint
cpp-vs-rust
Rust2023–2023
quick-lint / cpp-vs-rust

cpp-vs-rust

Discover this repository through its Hacker News conversations.

4Distinct people
8Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
17GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A public description has not been verified.

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 6:01:08 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by hour8 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2023-01-06 08:42:49 UTC to 2023-01-07 04:54:39 UTC.

01232023-01-06 08:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 09:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJan 6, 08:002023-01-06 09:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 10:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2023-01-06 10:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 11:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 11:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 12:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 12:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 13:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2023-01-06 13:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 14:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2023-01-06 14:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 15:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 15:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 16:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 16:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 17:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 17:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 18:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 18:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 19:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJan 6, 18:002023-01-06 19:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 20:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 20:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 21:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 21:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 22:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 22:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-06 23:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-06 23:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-07 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-07 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-07 01:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-07 01:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-07 02:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-07 02:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-07 03:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-07 03:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-07 04:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-01-07 04:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-07 05:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJan 7, 04:00

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Jan 6, 08:002023-01-06 08:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 09:00:00 UTC101
Jan 6, 09:002023-01-06 09:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 10:00:00 UTC303
Jan 6, 10:002023-01-06 10:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 11:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 11:002023-01-06 11:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 12:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 12:002023-01-06 12:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 13:00:00 UTC101
Jan 6, 13:002023-01-06 13:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 14:00:00 UTC101
Jan 6, 14:002023-01-06 14:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 15:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 15:002023-01-06 15:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 16:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 16:002023-01-06 16:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 17:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 17:002023-01-06 17:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 18:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 18:002023-01-06 18:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 19:00:00 UTC101
Jan 6, 19:002023-01-06 19:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 20:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 20:002023-01-06 20:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 21:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 21:002023-01-06 21:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 22:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 22:002023-01-06 22:00:00 UTC2023-01-06 23:00:00 UTC000
Jan 6, 23:002023-01-06 23:00:00 UTC2023-01-07 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 7, 00:002023-01-07 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-07 01:00:00 UTC000
Jan 7, 01:002023-01-07 01:00:00 UTC2023-01-07 02:00:00 UTC000
Jan 7, 02:002023-01-07 02:00:00 UTC2023-01-07 03:00:00 UTC000
Jan 7, 03:002023-01-07 03:00:00 UTC2023-01-07 04:00:00 UTC000
Jan 7, 04:002023-01-07 04:00:00 UTC2023-01-07 05:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

1 sources
I think https://github.com/quick-lint/cpp-vs-rust/blob/f8d31341f5cac... indicates Rust is using Mold too. And I get the impression that the thing unit being benchmarked is a single crate—that is, one crate 8×, 16×, 24× the size (which puts the burden on the compiler, in areas that don’t parallelise well), rather than 8×, 16×, 24× as many crates (which puts the weight on the linker and on well-parallelised parts of the compiler). On the hardware in question, which has loads of cores, I’m very confident that Rust would fare considerably better with 24 17.1k-line crates (410k lines, larger due to duplicating the entire thing rather than just the lexer) than with the one 104.4k-line crate apparently tested.
In A practical comparison of build and test speed between C++ and Rust

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.