C++

1763 readers

1 users here now

The center for all discussion and news regarding C++.

Rules

Respect instance rules.
Don't be a jerk.
Please keep all posts related to C++.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Safety, Revisited (accu.org)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This sounds like it would be hotly disputed by almost anyone you said it out loud to, even if you said it 40 years ago.

I think you're expressing uninformed and uneducated opinions.

Even Debian's computer language benchmarks game showcases C consistently outperforming Rust, with some notable exceptions in some key benchmarks.

And Rust was not a thing 40 years ago.

Anyway, I think I proved my point with regards to the silly idea that performance is a decisive trait. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Nah, 40 years ago this discussion already existed and it was between C and FORTRAN at the time. FORTRAN was often faster than C, precisely because of aliasing rules that Rust now benefits from as well: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/146159/is-fortran-easier-to-optimize-than-c-for-heavy-calculations

Btw, are these the Debian benchmarks you were referring to? Because I can see C and Rust trading blows with one another, but neither taking a consistent lead. Nothing that points to an undisputed performance lead surely. https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/rust-gcc.html

But I still agree with your premise that performance isn’t the deciding factor. Which means that other than legacy reasons, C (and C++) really doesn’t have much going for it anymore.