[cnnsucks]

>> while Rust is fairly young based on the 1.0 release date, there was a large amount of time prior to that where the language underwent a number of changes.

Both Rust and Java had similar intervals between start of development and 1.0 release, which is what I carefully referenced my claims to. The comparison is fair; deliberately conservative actually given Java 1.0 in 1995 (now 22 years ago.)

>> I don't see a reason that both Rust and Java's results can't be impressive in their own right.

The state of the art has moved on. There was a time when Java pulling to within 50-ish percent of a 45 year old programming language was impressive; back around 2005 or so. It's old hat now and there is little evidence the gap is going to close much further.