[larsnystrom]

> Performance is a frequently cited rationale for “Rewrite it in Rust” projects. While performance is high on my list of priorities, it’s not the primary driver behind this change.

Is performance a frequent rationale for rewriting C applications in Rust?

[dralley]

No - unless the rationale was taking better advantage of multithreading, which Rust does make easier.

But that's at least partially a maintainability argument, not just a performance one. Rust can make achieving higher levels of performance easier and less risky than doing so in C or C++ would have, but you do still have to work for it a little, it's not going to be magically faster.

[eej71]

I think that's only generally true for the period of time where the new tool has yet to achieve full functional parity with what it replaced. As that functionality gap is closed, the performance increase usually declines too.

[baseballdork]

It's also easier to do things in parallel in rust that might otherwise not have been considered in a C version.

[the__alchemist]

Is that because of the Rayon lib?

[vacuity]

No. It's normally memory safety and/or ease of tooling/coding/whatever.

[josefx]

It might be a rationale for a rewrite and rust is just the language the people doing the rewrite wanted to use.

[Octoth0rpe]

I think it's often a rationale for choosing rust over other languages once you've decided to rewrite.

[klysm]

No I don’t believe so