> Of course Rust is slower than C++. C++ has had decades of maturity and has enjoyed many contributors to its tooling. Rust has not, and its feature set (as in,

> Of course Rust is slower than C++. C++ has had decades of maturity and has enjoyed many contributors to its tooling. Rust has not, and its feature set (as in, the things the compiler needs to do) is much broader than any C++ compiler is specified to do. My thinking was the opposite. Because Rust is newer, it doesn't have the bloaty baggage that C++ and its compilers have. And Rust's module system is (in theory) far better for build times than C++'s #include-based module system. But instead of speculating, I put the time in to figure out the answer.