Solar: 100× Faster Solidity
Comments on “Solar: 100× Faster Solidity”
Claim-checked. Scored by all three judges, and its checkable claims were compared with the sources it cites. How far stories are checked
Paradigm released Solar v0.3, a Rust Solidity compiler that now generates EVM bytecode and ships in Forge via forge build --use solar. By Paradigm's own benchmarks on six projects, it builds about 100× faster than solc with via-IR, and its output uses 5% less gas and is 29% smaller. It also compiled Uniswap v4 where solc hit "Stack too deep". Two rival compilers beat it on a few workloads. The figures are self-reported, and most lack independent sourcing.
Why it ranked
No. 15 of 137 with a score of 0.66. The panel rated it highest on new information (0.93) and technical depth (0.82), lowest on audience breadth (0.48). The judges disagreed most on overclaim (spread 0.49), so the story is marked contested. Placed No. 15, No. 27 by score alone: the placement terms moved other stories past it.
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- Major Solidity compiler release with concrete benchmarks and reproducible suite; strong technical depth and practical value for smart contract developers, though benchmarks are vendor-reported and somewhat promotional in tone.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- A substantive compiler release with reproducible benchmarks, architecture details, safety implications, and immediate Foundry usage. Its claims are well-supported, though comparisons come from the authors’ benchmark suite and the piece retains some launch-oriented framing.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.66total under rubric v2.3Contestedjudges differ by 0.49 on overclaim
- Significance0.69
- Reader interest0.81
- Audience breadth0.48
- Practical relevance0.82
- Substantiated0.82
- Technical depth0.82
- New information0.93
- Counts against: Promotional0.21
- Counts against: Overclaim0.40
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SignificanceHow much does this change what people in tech know or can do? | 0.70 | 0.60 | 0.78 | 0.69 | 0.18 | +0.24 | +0.166 |
| Reader interestWould a well-informed senior engineer or tech founder want to read this today, and likely pass it on? | 0.72 | 0.80 | 0.90 | 0.81 | 0.18 | +0.26 | +0.210 |
| Audience breadthHow many people who build technology does it concern? | 0.48 | 0.50 | 0.45 | 0.48 | 0.05 | +0.13 | +0.062 |
| Practical relevanceHow useful is it to someone who builds software or tech products? | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.03 | +0.22 | +0.180 |
| SubstantiatedHow well is it backed? Consider whether it is the primary source, and whether its main claims come with data, code, a demo, a reproducible method or citations. | 0.90 | 0.70 | 0.86 | 0.82 | 0.20 | +0.05 | +0.041 |
| Technical depthHow technically substantive is it? | 0.78 | 0.80 | 0.88 | 0.82 | 0.10 | +0.05 | +0.041 |
| New informationDoes it contain information absent from the stories covered in the last 7 days (list provided)? | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.98 | 0.93 | 0.08 | +0.05 | +0.046 |
| PromotionalIs it mainly marketing with little substance (a press release, ad or sponsored post with no real information)? A launch post that carries real news is not promotional. | 0.15 | 0.30 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.15 | −0.19 | −0.040 |
| OverclaimDo the headline or conclusions claim more than the body supports? | 0.64 | 0.40 | 0.15 | 0.40 | 0.49 , above the contested threshold | −0.11 | −0.044 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.663 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.663 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-11-04/15/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-11-04/15.svg" alt="Ranked #15 on Rubric, 4 Nov 2026" width="238" height="28"></a>Claim check
Claim check: 1 matches source · 6 no source given · 1 couldn’t check. Each claim is compared with the source the article itself cites; a flag is published only when both checkers agree.
No source givenBenchmark result
Solar builds six real-world Solidity projects 100× faster than solc on average with via-IR, and up to 159× faster.
The article gives no link or citation for it.
The article says “Solar builds six real-world Solidity projects 100× faster than solc on average with via-IR, and up to 159× faster”
The source says No source to compare with.
Matches sourceBenchmark result
Solar's generated code uses 5% less gas to run, costs 26% less to deploy and is 29% smaller than solc's.
The cited source says the same thing.
The article says “Solar's code uses 5% less gas to run, costs 26% less to deploy and is 29% smaller than solc's”
The source says “the generated contracts used **5% less gas**, cost **26% less gas to deploy** and had **29% smaller bytecode** than those compiled with solc, as geometric means”
Source cited by the article: github.com/paradigmxyz/solar/tree/main/benches/runtime
No source givenFirst, only or fastest
Solar v0.3 is the first Solar version that generates EVM bytecode.
The article gives no link or citation for it.
The article says “the first version that generates EVM bytecode”
The source says No source to compare with.
No source givenFirst, only or fastest
With via-IR, solc fails on Uniswap v4 core and Seaport with "Stack too deep", and of the five compilers tested only Solar builds Seaport with via-IR.
The article gives no link or citation for it.
The article says “of the five compilers we tested, only Solar builds Seaport with via-IR”
The source says No source to compare with.
No source givenBenchmark result
Solady rewritten without inline assembly or unchecked math uses 19% less gas with Solar than the original does with solc.
The article gives no link or citation for it.
The article says “Solady rewritten without inline assembly or unchecked math uses 19% less gas with Solar than the original does with solc”
The source says No source to compare with.
Couldn’t checkCausal conclusion
In the solx launch post, solx needed unchecked math to move the storage write out of the factorial loop, while Solar does it with overflow checks intact.
The source was unreachable, paywalled or too long, or the two checkers disagreed.
The article says “In that post, solx needed unchecked math to move the storage write out of the loop”
The source says No passage could be compared.
Source cited by the article: paragraph.com/@zksync/solx-the-new-solidity-compiler-why-it-matters-to-you
No source givenBenchmark result
On Uniswap v4 and Aave, forge lsp is ready 15× to 20× sooner than the next fastest Solidity language server and answers hover, go to definition and completion in under 0.2 ms.
The article gives no link or citation for it.
The article says “it is ready 15× to 20× sooner than the next fastest Solidity language server and answers hover, go to definition and completion in under 0.2 ms, 8× to 170× faster”
The source says No source to compare with.
No source givenFirst, only or fastest
Solar builds whole projects faster than slang-solx, the Slang preview and oksolc, though slang-solx beat Solar on one workload and the Slang preview on three.
The article gives no link or citation for it.
The article says “On the same inputs and settings, Solar builds whole projects faster than all of them, and its code costs less to run and to deploy”
The source says No source to compare with.
Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 1 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 4 Nov 2026, 05:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.