> 2. ironically if we look at how things play out in practice rust is far more suited as general purpose languages then C, to a point where I would argue C is

> 2. ironically if we look at how things play out in practice rust is far more suited as general purpose languages then C, to a point where I would argue C is only a general purpose language on technicality not on practical IRL basis this is especially ridiculous when they argue C is the fasted general purpose language when that has proven to simply not hold up to larger IRL projects (i.e. not micro benchmarks) C has terrible UX for generic code re-use and memory management, this often means that in IRL projects people don't write the fasted code. Wrt. memory management it's not rare to see unnecessary clones, as not doing so it to easy to lead to bugs. Wrt. data structures you write the code which is maintainable, robust and fast enough and sometimes add the 10th maximal simple reimplementation (or C macro or similar) of some data structure instead of using reusing some data structures people spend years of fine tuning. When people switched a lot from C to C++ most general purpose projects got faster, not slower. And even for the C++ to Rust case it's not rare that companies end up with faster projects after the switch. Both C++ and Rust also allow more optimization in general. So C is only fastest in micro benchmarks after excluding stuff like fortran for not being general purpose while itself not really being used much anymore for general purpose projects...