> When you write `int a;` you create a variable which has `sizeof(int)` bytes of memory. It doesn't work with Rust, a place in memory is an attribute of value n

> When you write `int a;` you create a variable which has `sizeof(int)` bytes of memory. It doesn't work with Rust, a place in memory is an attribute of value not of variable. `let a: i32` doesn't allocate memory, memory will come with a value, when you assign the value to `a`. This just isn't accurate at all. In the corresponding abstract machines, `int a = 0;` and `let a = 0u32;` mean the exact same thing. The only thing that move semantics change is that variables become unassigned when moved from (unless Copy-typed), and the rust frontend tracks unassigned variables and doesn't permit their use. This has nothing to do with memory allocation. It turns out that where the AM allocates and where optimized code allocates are often wildly different, but do not mistake this for a difference in the languages. If I had to guess, (optimized) C was behaving differently than you believed, but you only noticed this when it came up in rust.