5 ms·

> Do you have any examples? AFAIK properly tuned rust and c++ will perform largely the same. In principle, Rust has some overhead for being "safe", which C++ d

> Do you have any examples? AFAIK properly tuned rust and c++ will perform largely the same. In principle, Rust has some overhead for being "safe", which C++ does not. Also, C++ benefits for longer period of time and more people working on optimizing its libraries and compilers. > Are you talking for computational chemistry specifically or general libraries? Ah, indeed, no. I have no idea which chemistry libraries are available for Rust and for C++. I was referring to scientific computing, algebra and other heavy-lifting work. > Additionally, “cargo add xxx” is infinitely faster than integrating some random third party c++ dependency. That's not one of OP's criteria. But - seeing how you like package managers, try `conan install /path/to/srcdir` from the build directory. For more details, read: https://docs.conan.io/en/latest/getting_started.html https://docs.conan.io/en/latest/getting_started.html > Not to mention that C++ falls on the floor if one dependency requires transitive dependency X and another (or you) requires X at an incompatible version? C++ is a language, it doesn't have dependency management. As for libraries, that situation is so rare - in my experience - that a chemistry person should not even be bothered to consider it. > haven’t that found to be my experience. Well, I learned something new today... I didn't know about rustup. Was it introduced recently?

vlovich123 4y ago
> In principle, Rust has some overhead for being "safe", which C++ does not. Also, C++ benefits for longer period of time and more people working on optimizing its libraries and compilers. Do you know of any specific safety features that makes rust slower? About the only one I can think of at runtime is that everything is bounds checked but that’s usually fixable in many ways (and technically c++ has that too except it’s applied randomly based on subtitle API differences like [] isn’t but .at is). As for quality of the standard library it’s hard to say. I haven’t found it to be bad. The HashMap implementation is better out of the box, a Vec/vector doesn’t really have anything special. File system APIs, error handling, modules, and async all feel more mature and polished (not performance per se but just overall completeness of the language). What is on your mind when you say that the c++ standard library is higher quality? Oh, and which of the three major implementations are you referring to? The compilers story is actually even better because very little optimization happens in the frontend and thus a lot of the optimizations done for c++ apply to rust too. One specific way the language itself is better is that it disallowed aliasing so it’s closer to Fortran for numerical stuff and there’s various optimizations that c++ just can’t do. If I recall correctly that hasn’t been fully hooked up to the compiler due to bugs in LLVM but that will get resolved eventually. Overall, I’m not familiar with the claim that Rust code compiles worse than c++. About the only thing I’ve run into so far is bound checking showing up in hotspot code that I wrote non idiomatically because I’m still new to the language. > Well, I learned something new today... I didn't know about rustup. Was it introduced recently? 1.0 is 6 years ago so not recent at all (not sure if there were pre 1.0 releases too): https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/5iqsmg/rustup_100_is_here https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/5iqsmg/rustup_100_is_...

vlovich123 4y ago

> In principle, Rust has some overhead for being "safe", which C++ does not. Also, C++ benefits for longer period of time and more people working on optimizing its libraries and compilers. Do you know of any specific safety features that makes rust slower? About the only one I can think of at runtime is that everything is bounds checked but that’s usually fixable in many ways (and technically c++ has that too except it’s applied randomly based on subtitle API differences like [] isn’t but .at is). As for quality of the standard library it’s hard to say. I haven’t found it to be bad. The HashMap implementation is better out of the box, a Vec/vector doesn’t really have anything special. File system APIs, error handling, modules, and async all feel more mature and polished (not performance per se but just overall completeness of the language). What is on your mind when you say that the c++ standard library is higher quality? Oh, and which of the three major implementations are you referring to? The compilers story is actually even better because very little optimization happens in the frontend and thus a lot of the optimizations done for c++ apply to rust too. One specific way the language itself is better is that it disallowed aliasing so it’s closer to Fortran for numerical stuff and there’s various optimizations that c++ just can’t do. If I recall correctly that hasn’t been fully hooked up to the compiler due to bugs in LLVM but that will get resolved eventually. Overall, I’m not familiar with the claim that Rust code compiles worse than c++. About the only thing I’ve run into so far is bound checking showing up in hotspot code that I wrote non idiomatically because I’m still new to the language. > Well, I learned something new today... I didn't know about rustup. Was it introduced recently? 1.0 is 6 years ago so not recent at all (not sure if there were pre 1.0 releases too): https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/5iqsmg/rustup_100_is_here https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/5iqsmg/rustup_100_is_...