3 ms·
> Rust is a little faster, and avoids GC Depending on what you're doing. I am finding that Rust is easily beating all of the non-C languages in terms of full
by threeseed 3y ago
> Rust is a little faster, and avoids GC
Depending on what you're doing.
I am finding that Rust is easily beating all of the non-C languages in terms of full support for the latest performance technologies e.g. io_uring, SIMD (AVX2/AVX512/NEON), DirectStorage, CUDA etc as well as the highest quality wrappers for C/C++ libraries.
So for many applications Rust will simply leave Go for dust.
In fact for me the only benefits of Go are single binary and startup time. Otherwise I find Rust to be ideal for when I need low level performance. And Scala to be significantly better for backend apps since its faster, has access to more libraries, better concurrency and a stronger type system resulting in much more reliable code.
- ssokolow 3y ago> In fact for me the only benefits of Go are single binary and startup time. I hope you mean "compilation time" or "time to first prototype". My experience has been that, if a Rust binary doesn't start instantly, it's the fault of a specific library, not the language in general. Also, they ARE working on single-binary deployment for Rust... they just have a much more "Take your time and do it right. Don't hack around ecosystem flaws" approach than Go. If you're not cross-compiling/cross-deploying, Rust is already on par with non-cgo Go... you just need to use a musl-libc build target for Linux, specify RUSTFLAGS="-C target-feature=+crt-static" for Windows, etc. to get statically linked libc. (The musl-libc targets are a simple `rustup target add` away if your only C dependency is the libc itself.)