Very interesting article. Most of the time I do not like myth busting articles because they are to much focused on opinions and taking things out of context but this one is very well written and fully based on facts on both sides. Thanks for sharing.
Debunking that C++ is faster and safer than Rust
11–20 of 84 posts
Re: Debunking that C++ is faster and safer than Rust
#12This article is a bit click-baity. It's more about busting myths by a particular C++ programmer against rust. Anyway for a truth (well maybe it is a myth?) that we can't bust yet... Rust is simply not available on all platforms that C++ is. Two platforms that I think are missing: * 16-bit MS-DOS * 32-bit PowerPC (Linux)
How much active development of new software is being done for MS-DOS? Really curious to know.
Re: Debunking that C++ is faster and safer than Rust
#13This is an endlessly perplexing headline, as its core assertion, "C++ is faster and safer than Rust", is what the body of the article spends its whole time attempting to refute. A more accurate title for the content of this article would be "Debunking the myths that Rust is not safer or as fast as C++".
Yeah I was really confused too. You expect that author to bash Rust in favor of C++, but he does the exact opposite.
Re: Debunking that C++ is faster and safer than Rust
#14This article is a bit click-baity. It's more about busting myths by a particular C++ programmer against rust. Anyway for a truth (well maybe it is a myth?) that we can't bust yet... Rust is simply not available on all platforms that C++ is. Two platforms that I think are missing: * 16-bit MS-DOS * 32-bit PowerPC (Linux)
How much active development of new software is being done for MS-DOS? Really curious to know.
I'd hope that he was just joking with that list
Re: Debunking that C++ is faster and safer than Rust
#15Strictly speaking it's the compiler that generates faster code.
Sounds like the 'sufficiently smart compiler[1] myth.
Re: Debunking that C++ is faster and safer than Rust
#16This article is a bit click-baity. It's more about busting myths by a particular C++ programmer against rust. Anyway for a truth (well maybe it is a myth?) that we can't bust yet... Rust is simply not available on all platforms that C++ is. Two platforms that I think are missing: * 16-bit MS-DOS * 32-bit PowerPC (Linux)
Is anyone besides embedded doing _any_ 32-bit dev outside of maintaining legacy code?
I mean 64-bit PowerPc is by now around 17 Years old and even 15 years ago some of the most widespread users of PowerPc (Xbox) switched to using 64 bit PowerPc architecture...
Re: Debunking that C++ is faster and safer than Rust
#17This is an endlessly perplexing headline, as its core assertion, "C++ is faster and safer than Rust", is what the body of the article spends its whole time attempting to refute. A more accurate title for the content of this article would be "Debunking the myths that Rust is not safer or as fast as C++".
Some scare quotes might do the title some good, too.
Re: Debunking that C++ is faster and safer than Rust
#18This article is a bit click-baity. It's more about busting myths by a particular C++ programmer against rust. Anyway for a truth (well maybe it is a myth?) that we can't bust yet... Rust is simply not available on all platforms that C++ is. Two platforms that I think are missing: * 16-bit MS-DOS * 32-bit PowerPC (Linux)
> * 16-bit MS-DOS
That's not entirely true - you actually can create .COM executables: https://github.com/ellbrid/rust_dos
Re: Debunking that C++ is faster and safer than Rust
#19> As you can see, the documented behavior and the absence of undefined behavior due to signed overflows do make life easier.
Not having undefined behavior does make life easier, but having it be defined and then giving the example which benefits from the way that Rust chooses to define it is not really fair.
> With less effort, Rust generates less assembly code. And you don't need to give any clues to the compiler by using noexcept, rvalue references and std::move. When you compare languages, you should use adequate benchmarks.
Actually, the issue is that C++ just can't match Rust's semantics here. By default it will allow for exceptions, by default it will copy; if you watch the talk rvalue references cause the double indirection and fixing this would require some changes in the language to accommodate the use case.
Re: Debunking that C++ is faster and safer than Rust
#20Strictly speaking it's the compiler that generates faster code.
Sounds like the 'sufficiently smart compiler[1] myth. 1. https://wiki.c2.com/?SufficientlySmartCompiler
It's both. With bad language design you won't get fast code (at least without going through insane loops).
But even with good language design the compiler need to use them, which needs time to be implemented etc.
So in practice it's often more a mixture between how easy/hard the language makes optimizations and how much work (with given expertise) was put into the compiler optimizations.
Through there are insane optimization which need to high amount of knowledge about the code and as such which you will have a really had time to ever realize with Asm,C or similar. But most time they aren't worth it as getting them right is hard and the time is often better spend with adding more straight forward optimizations, maintaining the compiler code etc.