(no title)
mid-kid | 1 month ago
I'm very happy to see the nuanced take in this article, slowly deconstructing the implicit assumptions proposed by the person asking this question, to arrive at the same conclusion that I long have. I hope this post reaches the right people.
A particular language doesn't have a "speed", a particular implementation may have, and the language may have properties that make it difficult to make a fast implementation (of those specific properties/features) given the constraints of our current computer architectures. Even then, there's usually too many variables to make a generalized statement, and the question often presumes that performance is measured as total cpu time.
steveklabnik|1 month ago
nixpulvis|1 month ago
unknown|1 month ago
[deleted]
jibal|1 month ago
jesse__|1 month ago
ActorNightly|1 month ago
> Is Rust faster than C
> Example:
>... unsafe...
Its like Rust proponents can't even see the irony.
mywittyname|1 month ago
I assume this example is used because programmers of either language reach for asm when looking for raw performance. But to me, it's shouldn't even be a discussion point, since even I know both languages can be made to emit the same assembly.
Also, I think it side-steps the hard parts of the question - which is, what are the performance impacts of Rust safety?