3 ms·

I don't think "more costly" is true across the board. I think it might be more a matter of taste, in terms of which costs you prefer. Rust is often higher-cost

I don't think "more costly" is true across the board. I think it might be more a matter of taste, in terms of which costs you prefer. Rust is often higher-cost in terms of up front design and development time to get something working. But the resulting program might have lower costs in terms of debugging and downtime afterwards. This distinction is especially strong when the program is multithreaded.

jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
Not really. Many other mainstream languages give you memory safety, strict type systems and overall robustness without having to deal with memory management or low-level details. Even for parallelism this holds true. I would say it is even more pronounced there, in fact. Some high-level languages even come with simple, effective ways of doing parallelism without multithreading, which simplifies problems a lot. Of course, they may not reach the top performance that C++ or Rust might, but that is the trade off. Performance vs. development cost.