5 ms·
> It's not because it is written in Rust that it is efficient, is it? no, but 1) Rust significantly raises the boundary and on average it's probably more likel
by tcfhgj 2y ago
> It's not because it is written in Rust that it is efficient, is it?
no, but 1) Rust significantly raises the boundary and on average it's probably more likely too
- palata 2y agoAs I said, the one example I have is a very popular TUI library and it's a lot less efficient than the popular alternative in at least 2 other memory-safe languages I tried.
- tcfhgj 2y agothat's why I wrote on avg
- palata 2y agoWell you threw as a belief that because Rust is advertised as fast, people implementing Rust libraries probably care about speed on average. I don't see why they would care more, and in my experience they don't, on average.
- tcfhgj 2y agoNo, I didn't throw that, though now that you say that, I certainly believe people using Rust care on avg more about speed. Your experience is a singular event not representing the average. My original opinion was that people should use more Rust to write more efficient software, because it's beneficial to humanity.