Our fully atomic system leverages the LLVM toolchain and libc++ by default, delivering superior diagnostics and package diversity. We’re not afraid to challenge convention - thoughtfully replacing traditional components with modern alternatives that prioritize safety and reliability.

We closely follow the work of organizations dedicated to making software safer, including the Prossimo project and their Memory Safety initiative, the Tweede Golf team, and the Trifecta Tech Foundation. By monitoring and adopting innovations from these pioneers, we can integrate proven solutions like memory-safe replacements for critical system components.

As we continuously evaluate and adopt the best solutions, our architectural decisions enable powerful features like atomic updates that can safely transform your entire system, complete with built-in deduplication and instant rollbacks.

This is the future of Linux distribution design, built on a foundation of experience and innovation.

I can’t compare compile times to C++ or Rust but I would expect it to be in the same ballpark of Rust. However, the way I develop is with all external dependencies binary cached so I only have to build my code.

As far as the language itself is concerned, I love it. It really is like a, “Diet Rust Lite”. By which I mean, it’s powerful but a lot less pedantic by doing some things for you that Rust puts on the developer. If you’re deploying in an environment that can tolerate less fine control over memory use and instructions, Swift is the better option IMO.

If you’d like to read the observations of a team that can really evaluate Swift and compare it to other options: https://forums.swift.org/t/our-journey-with-swift-thus-far-some-notes-and-reflections/70510

Id be happy to discuss finer points if anybody wants.

Edit: Swift for C++ devs series by a swift core team member — https://www.douggregor.net/posts/swift-for-cxx-practitioners-value-types