> There is a cost to it, same as in Rust All of these things have a larger cost than Rust: you're forced to use pervasive reference counting and very defensive

> There is a cost to it, same as in Rust All of these things have a larger cost than Rust: you're forced to use pervasive reference counting and very defensive data structures. Rust allows you to get away with pointers deep into other things, as well as aggressive data structures, all in safe code. Rust also has reliable use-after-move defense for arbitrary resources (not just vague dynamic protections for only the memory resource), and defends against data races. That is, Rust has true safety in a way that can give higher performance than approximate safety in C++.