On: Rust is now overall faster than C in benchmarks

[musicale]

> real world C is a lot less performant than people think it might be

What is meant here? Fast? Reliable? Secure? Memory efficient? Power efficient? Easy to write? Easy to maintain? Quick to compile? Easy to debug?

I have no illusions about the reliability/security/correctness of real-world C code, especially since it's usually not compiled with a memory-safe compiler or run with memory-safe libraries and runtime environments (though it's often sandboxed to limit the damage.) It's relatively easy to introduce memory errors which are not detected by the compiler or runtime.

Certainly many algorithms and data structures (in C and other languages) exhibit tradeoffs including things like speed vs. memory use vs. code size vs. complexity, etc..

But C compilers are pretty fast, which I really like. Then there are/were environments like Turbo Pascal or Think C, which seem to have been amazingly compact while offering a rapid edit-compile-debug cycle as well as decent runtime speed and code size.

[unethical_ban → musicale]

I assume, since the submissions says is talking about something "faster in benchmarks", that he means "fast".

[musicale → unethical_ban]

Yeah, I think you're right.

"Less performant" seems like a less clear (so to speak) way of saying "slower" (or maybe "less efficient" or simply "worse" in some instances.)