logoalt Hacker News

arpadavtoday at 5:09 PM2 repliesview on HN

This is amazing.. ive been working with custom CUDA kernels and https://crates.io/crates/cudarc for a long time, and this honestly looks like it could be a near drop-in replacement.

im especially curious how build times would compare? Most Rust CUDA crates obv rely on calling CMake or nvcc, which can make compilation painfully slow. coincidentally, just last week i was profiling build times and found that tools like sccache can dramatically reduce rebuild times by caching artifacts - but you still end up paying for expensive custom nvcc invocations (e.g. candle by hugging face calls custom nvcc command in their kernel compilation): https://arpadvoros.com/posts/2026/05/05/speeding-up-rust-whi...


Replies

the__alchemisttoday at 6:00 PM

Cudarc slaps!

> Most Rust CUDA crates obv rely on calling CMake or nvcc, which can make compilation painfully slow.

I anecdotally haven't hit this; see the `cuda_setup` crate I made to handle the build scripts; it is a simple `build.rs` which only recompiles if the file changes, and it's a tiny compile time (compared to the rust CPU-side code)

show 1 reply
jauntywundrkindtoday at 5:55 PM

Do other people agree cuda-oxide looks like a near dorp in replacement for cudarc?

That would be amazing, but probably not imo complementarily so.

I am curious what distinguished cuda-oxide. Beyond it being totally under nv control.

show 3 replies