> It's hard to beat the C-style for-loop: they map really closely to the underlying hardware, and modern compilers are starting to become really good at auto-ve

> It's hard to beat the C-style for-loop: they map really closely to the underlying hardware, and modern compilers are starting to become really good at auto-vectorizing them. Except with many compilers and depending on the loop, for-loops may optimise much poorer than their C++/Rust iterator based counterparts. That's because modern language constructs can communicate intent much clearer to the compiler than a primitive for-loop can; the compiler has to make fewer assumptions (which can can be wrong). So no, it's not "generally true" at all.