Ryzen 9 3950X (16 core). I think it was top of the line 5 or 6 years ago but it only cost me about £300 second hand for the whole PC (with 128 GB RAM - before the RAMpocalypse!) Definitely not a crazy machine.
> I started using C++ on MS-DOS, on a 20 MHz 386SX PC with 2MB RAM and 20 MB HDD
Yeah, I mean early C++ was quite a lot simpler than modern C++23! Of course it's going to compile way faster. You're not compiling UE 5 on that machine! Compilers didn't have so many slow optimisations back then either.
Yes, but no one needs to use C++23 to the full extent to stress test the compiler in -O3, or go crazy with compile time execution.
While I could comfortably still develop C++ in a Asus 1215B netbook with 8 GB and SSD, thanks to all the native libraries I could install, and make use via pkgconfig, the same could not be said to play around with Rust on the same netbook.
This matters, because not everyone can afford top of the line desktops, especially in 2nd and 3rd level countries, which then plays a role in language adoption.
Some even make do with what they can run on tablets.
I don't think I really agree with that. You can make do with less powerful machines in Rust too. Until this year I was using a 12 year old quad core machine that was only a bit faster than a RPi 5.
I think the biggest issue is actually disk space. C++ isn't exactly efficient with disk space but Rust is on another level. You're going to run out of disk space on that netbook it you have any more than like 2 Rust projects built.
Ryzen 9 3950X (16 core). I think it was top of the line 5 or 6 years ago but it only cost me about £300 second hand for the whole PC (with 128 GB RAM - before the RAMpocalypse!) Definitely not a crazy machine.
> I started using C++ on MS-DOS, on a 20 MHz 386SX PC with 2MB RAM and 20 MB HDD
Yeah, I mean early C++ was quite a lot simpler than modern C++23! Of course it's going to compile way faster. You're not compiling UE 5 on that machine! Compilers didn't have so many slow optimisations back then either.