Thanks. >Part of the size of executables can be attributed to these languages implementing their own libc equivalents (or wrapping libc). Yes, I agree. Both o

Thanks. >Part of the size of executables can be attributed to these languages implementing their own libc equivalents (or wrapping libc). Yes, I agree. Both of them have more features and I guess (I know it a bit for Go, not sure for Rust) do some more / higher level things than plain C, which may partly be why they need to wrap libc (or implement the equivalent) with non-trivial additional code.