> Languages are typically judged by their defaults. If rust can produce small binaries, then it must produce small binaries. Code size isn't the only axes that

> Languages are typically judged by their defaults. If rust can produce small binaries, then it must produce small binaries. Code size isn't the only axes that can be used to measure the quality of a binary, there are many others: like run-time performance, portability, debuggability, etc. No C compiler I know optimizes for size by default, in fact, I don't know of any C compiler that, by default, optimizes anything at all. Clang, GCC, MSVC, and all other mainstream compilers require users to enable optimizations (O1, O2, O3, Ofast, etc.) and none of these are code-size optimizations. Only relatively recently have compilers grown the ability to optimize for size, and you have to go way out of your way to do it (enable Oz, disable debug information -g0, enable LTO -flto, ...). Optimizing for size over anything else by default is one of the worst trade-offs a compiler can make. It's a bad trade-offs for most programs, and it is a bad-tradeoff for most compiler users.