[slashdev]

No, there shouldn’t be.

Rust is not magic and you can compile both with llvm (clang++).

If you specify that the pointers don’t alias, and don’t use any language sugar that adds overhead on either side, the performance will be very similar.

[nicholassm83]

I agree.

The Rust implementation even needs to use a few unsafe blocks (to work with UnsafeCells internally) but is mostly safe code. Other than that you can achieve the same in C++. But I think the real benefit is that you can write the rest of your code in safe Rust.

[bluejekyll]

While you’re not explicitly saying this, C++ in Rust’s terms, is all unsafe. In a multi-threading context like this, that’s even more important.

[nicholassm83]

I'm trying to be polite. :-) And there is a lot of great C++ code and developers out there - especially in the e-trading/HFT space.

[zamalek]

Nit: C/++ is safer than Rust unsafe. There are constraints (no aliasing) that must be upheld in unsafe.

[alchemist1e9]

Unless the rest of your code is already in C++ and you’re interested in this new better disrupter implementation, that’s probably a common situation for people interested in this topic. Any recommendations for those in that situation? perhaps existing C++ implementations already match this idk.