[paulgdp]

"Any optimization you could do in Rust is probably easier in C++"

I think this feeling comes from the fact that it takes longer to learn the basics of Rust compared to C++.

However, once one has learned C++ or Rust to a reasonable level, I would argue that Rust is actually easier to use.

This is not the same thing but many people make this claim.

[ncmncm]

Each is easier than the other, depending on where you look and where you come from.

But it is a fair bet that changes to C++ code to implement a point performance optimization will be smaller than the same sort of change would be for Rust code. For the latter, you are likely to need to re-architect that part of the system some to get your optimization and still satisfy the borrow checker. Having a borrow checker that demands satisfaction is a virtue, but there is no denying it adds cost in the small, where we're talking about, notwithstanding that such cost may be paid back at the system level.

[jhgb]

> it takes longer to learn the basics of Rust compared to C++.

Does it really? For example I'd think that initialization of objects is a topic that should be in "basics", yet initialization of objects in C++ seems disproportionately complex compared to Rust (at least to me).

[ncmncm]

Yet, object initialization is not a thing anyone needs to pay much attention to. Yes, there are historical rabbit holes, but you need not go down them.

[jhgb]

> object initialization is not a thing anyone needs to pay much attention to

So it's perfectly fine for me to leave objects uninitialized because of lack of attention?

[ncmncm]

It's perfectly fine to initialize them in the simplest and most obvious way.