[frutiger]

EDIT: Parent commenter edited the comment to append "with the same performance as C", so you can ignore my reply.

So is Python, JavaScript, Java, OCaml, Haskell...

A more distinguishing feature of Rust is not only that it is memory safe but also that it doesn’t have a GC.

In any case the presence of a single unsafe block can make the program no longer memory safe. Of course, if used appropriately, it vastly reduces the audit surface compared to something like C++.

[Someone1234]

None of those have nearly the same performance as C.

[frutiger]

GP edited the comment, so now my reply looks silly.

[Cynddl]

OCaml can have nearly the same performance as C.

[chronogram]

Is GC a negative? I’ve yet to see anyone go “well I would’ve written this in Golang but it’s got GC”. Even that new Windows driver style, where it’s split in two, can have half of it being GC’d, right? Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Driver_Frameworks at least.

[saagarjha]

> I’ve yet to see anyone go “well I would’ve written this in Golang but it’s got GC”.

This is a dealbreaker in a lot of contexts where garbage collection pauses would be unacceptable.

[ncmncm]

Yes, GC is a negative. There is a huge literature in measures to mitigate its negatives. These always involve trading off one against another, and libraries are frequently incompatible with any particular mix of them.

[BubRoss]

A GC is literally the only reason I haven't tried go.