Java, Go, and C++ all have enough differences here that at this level of detail you shouldn't assume any other conversion will have exactly the same result that

Java, Go, and C++ all have enough differences here that at this level of detail you shouldn't assume any other conversion will have exactly the same result that msteffen lays out. Java generally has more sophisticated compilation and a lot more engineering effort poured into it, but Go often ends up with less indirection in the first place and started life with what Java calls records [1] so they are more pervasive throughout the ecosystem. Which effect "wins" can be difficult to guess in advance without either a deep analysis of the code, or just trying it. What msteffen talks about is a general principle that you can expect even small differences between languages to sometimes have significant impact on code. I think this is also one of the reasons Rust libraries tend to come out so fast. They're very good at not copying things, but doing it safely without having to make "just in case" copies. It's hard to ever see a benchmark in which this particular effect makes Rust come out faster than any other language, because in the natural process of optimizing any particular benchmark for a non-Rust language, the benchmark will naturally not involve taking random copies "just in case", but this can have a significant impact on all that real code out in the real world not written for benchmarking. Casually written Rust can safely not make lots of copies, casually written code in almost anything else will probably have a lot more copying than the programmer realizes. [1]: https://blogs.oracle.com/javamagazine/post/records-come-to-java https://blogs.oracle.com/javamagazine/post/records-come-to-j...