> I don’t think animating 1000 things per frame gonna saturate a CPU core doing these computations Oh, my sweet summer child. :) > In modern games none of tha

> I don’t think animating 1000 things per frame gonna saturate a CPU core doing these computations Oh, my sweet summer child. :) > In modern games none of that bandwidth is processed on CPU. Games use GPU for that, which don’t run Rust. So is your claim that OP is making up stuff about running code on the CPU because its a 3D engine? Also, why mention megapixels if you think it's irrelevant? :) > Weak claim? "_all_ performant data structures in Rust _must_ use unsafe code" is a long tail reading of the original comment. If that was the intent, it is a weak claim, because we can observe many memory-safe languages and runtimes and have performant data structures. (minecraft was written in Java, years and years ago!) > Look at the source code of data structures implemented by Rust standard library. This is the bailey, which was directly covered in the previous comment. The motte was "all performant data structures in Rust must use unsafe code" Here, the bailey, steelmanning as strongly as possible, is "data structures with unsafe code are more performant than ones without", which was directly said in the comment you are replying to. In addition to the swapping, this is a picture-perfect replication of the bomber with holes on it meme, as the other reply notes.