> so no language can be faster than Rust (assuming equal quality implementations) unless it either isn't memory safe or it can statically prove bounds more freq

> so no language can be faster than Rust (assuming equal quality implementations) unless it either isn't memory safe or it can statically prove bounds more frequently I think this is exaggerating things a little. There are definitely areas where performance could be improved if Rust supported additional features. One big one is more precise control over memory layout to reduce cache misses, like the ability to switch between structs of arrays and arrays of structs. Another is a ffast-math equivalent, which Rust currently lacks.