3 ms·
No, there shouldn’t be. Rust is not magic and you can compile both with llvm (clang++). If you specify that the pointers don’t alias, and don’t use any langua
by slashdev 2y ago
No, there shouldn’t be.
Rust is not magic and you can compile both with llvm (clang++).
If you specify that the pointers don’t alias, and don’t use any language sugar that adds overhead on either side, the performance will be very similar.
- nicholassm83 2y agoI agree. The Rust implementation even needs to use a few unsafe blocks (to work with UnsafeCells internally) but is mostly safe code. Other than that you can achieve the same in C++. But I think the real benefit is that you can write the rest of your code in safe Rust.
- alchemist1e9 2y agoUnless the rest of your code is already in C++ and you’re interested in this new better disrupter implementation, that’s probably a common situation for people interested in this topic. Any recommendations for those in that situation? perhaps existing C++ implementations already match this idk.
- bluejekyll 2y agoWhile you’re not explicitly saying this, C++ in Rust’s terms, is all unsafe. In a multi-threading context like this, that’s even more important.
- nicholassm83 2y agoI'm trying to be polite. :-) And there is a lot of great C++ code and developers out there - especially in the e-trading/HFT space.
- zamalek 2y agoNit: C/++ is safer than Rust unsafe. There are constraints (no aliasing) that must be upheld in unsafe.