4 ms·

I actually don't think so. I've seen plenty of Rust libraries that copy strings about 5 times unnecesssarily between usages, just because `.clone()`, substrings

I actually don't think so. I've seen plenty of Rust libraries that copy strings about 5 times unnecesssarily between usages, just because `.clone()`, substrings and co are so convenient. Those all could have been optimized away, but the authors of that code didn't knew or didn't try. And if you do `MyAwesomeStructure::new()` you might actually trigger a whole bunch of allocations which are invisible. So a "yes" from my side on Rusts ability to remove allocations if you try hard enough. A "no" however on allocations being extremely explicit and easy to see for non experts.

nestorD 6y ago
dthul's comment [0] covers my point of view fairly well. Clones and new are easy to spot, you might not be careful about them because you do not care or have other priority but you can find/grep them quickly: they are explicit. Meanwhile C++ has a lot of implicit memory allocation and things that might or might not allocate. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24061235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24061235