No, it is not a good thing. It is a waste of my development time that I could use for productive work.
On other AOT compiled languages that I use at work, I can reuse binaries across projects, including the languages Rust intends to replace.
It is a hard sell, if using Rust means having to spend more time compiling than even with C++ (specially now that modules are finally coming, at least for us with VC++).
So, than cargo needs to be improved so that there is a set of dependency values (name, version, rustc version, etc) that can guarantee the uniqueness of a binary library.
To me it seems FOSS undervalues the value of binary libraries in the enterprise, or how they get used in many corporations or companies selling components.
Rust improved safety is a good thing™, but not at the expense of continuously seeing the same libraries being compiled over and over, vs reusing binary artifacts across projects.
On other AOT compiled languages that I use at work, I can reuse binaries across projects, including the languages Rust intends to replace.
It is a hard sell, if using Rust means having to spend more time compiling than even with C++ (specially now that modules are finally coming, at least for us with VC++).