I think that any configuration file checking that takes as long as cargo check is probably not really what I'd call a configuration file, and thus it's totally ok for them to ask to just re-run the program to get the next error.
1 Like
I'd like to agree, but thoughts come into my head of someone's version of re-running the program entailing rebooting a slowly-booting server or pushing a large container image over the Internet. Maybe they could write a separate tool to validate the configuration file quickly, maybe not. Maybe we should care about such cases, maybe not. Anyway, I'm rather off-topic.
I usually only run "cargo check" if I'm interested in fixing my own, hand-created, artisanal compile errors. That's nearly instantaneous (usually not more than 1-2 seconds), so far from being annoying. It takes me more time to understand the context and fix the error anyway. It can also take me more time to read (and understand) the error message if it's something infrequent. (Eg. I hardly ever get non-trivial lifetime errors, but when I do, they usually take a bit of time to figure out. Certainly more than it would take me to re-run rustc for a second time.)
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. We invite you to open a new topic if you have further questions or comments.