> As you've just demonstrated, that point can be made without even mentioning Zig, let alone copy/pasting some compile time stuff with no other comment or context. Which is why I thought (well, hoped) there might be something more to it than just a dunk attempt.

Having concrete proof that something can be done more efficiently is extremely important and, no, I haven't "demonstrated" anything, since my earlier comment would have had way less substance to it without the previous context.

The comment from Andrew is not just random compiler stats, but a datapoint showing a comparable example having dramatically different performance characteristics.

You can find in this very HN submission various comments that assume that Rust's compiler performance is impossible to improve because of reasons that actually are mostly (if not entirely) irrelevant. Case in point, see people talking about how Rust compilation must take longer because of the borrow checker (and other safety checks) and Steve pointing out that, no, actually that part of the compilation pipeline is very small.

> Now we get all of this off-topic discussion about Zig.

So no, I would argue the opposite: this discussion is very much on topic.

I disagree. Zig and go are perfect frames of reference to say “actually no, Rust really is slow. Here are examples for you to go and see for yourself”