> In principle, Rust has some overhead for being "safe", which C++ does not. Also, C++ benefits for longer period of time and more people working on optimizing its libraries and compilers.
Do you know of any specific safety features that makes rust slower? About the only one I can think of at runtime is that everything is bounds checked but that’s usually fixable in many ways (and technically c++ has that too except it’s applied randomly based on subtitle API differences like [] isn’t but .at is). As for quality of the standard library it’s hard to say. I haven’t found it to be bad. The HashMap implementation is better out of the box, a Vec/vector doesn’t really have anything special. File system APIs, error handling, modules, and async all feel more mature and polished (not performance per se but just overall completeness of the language). What is on your mind when you say that the c++ standard library is higher quality? Oh, and which of the three major implementations are you referring to?
The compilers story is actually even better because very little optimization happens in the frontend and thus a lot of the optimizations done for c++ apply to rust too. One specific way the language itself is better is that it disallowed aliasing so it’s closer to Fortran for numerical stuff and there’s various optimizations that c++ just can’t do. If I recall correctly that hasn’t been fully hooked up to the compiler due to bugs in LLVM but that will get resolved eventually. Overall, I’m not familiar with the claim that Rust code compiles worse than c++. About the only thing I’ve run into so far is bound checking showing up in hotspot code that I wrote non idiomatically because I’m still new to the language.
> Well, I learned something new today... I didn't know about rustup. Was it introduced recently?
Do you know of any specific safety features that makes rust slower? About the only one I can think of at runtime is that everything is bounds checked but that’s usually fixable in many ways (and technically c++ has that too except it’s applied randomly based on subtitle API differences like [] isn’t but .at is). As for quality of the standard library it’s hard to say. I haven’t found it to be bad. The HashMap implementation is better out of the box, a Vec/vector doesn’t really have anything special. File system APIs, error handling, modules, and async all feel more mature and polished (not performance per se but just overall completeness of the language). What is on your mind when you say that the c++ standard library is higher quality? Oh, and which of the three major implementations are you referring to?
The compilers story is actually even better because very little optimization happens in the frontend and thus a lot of the optimizations done for c++ apply to rust too. One specific way the language itself is better is that it disallowed aliasing so it’s closer to Fortran for numerical stuff and there’s various optimizations that c++ just can’t do. If I recall correctly that hasn’t been fully hooked up to the compiler due to bugs in LLVM but that will get resolved eventually. Overall, I’m not familiar with the claim that Rust code compiles worse than c++. About the only thing I’ve run into so far is bound checking showing up in hotspot code that I wrote non idiomatically because I’m still new to the language.
> Well, I learned something new today... I didn't know about rustup. Was it introduced recently?
1.0 is 6 years ago so not recent at all (not sure if there were pre 1.0 releases too): https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/5iqsmg/rustup_100_is_...