|
|
|
|
|
by saghm
164 days ago
|
|
The time was taken by the code around the assembly language. It was an abstraction someone wrote in a way that happened not to be efficient. The ability of someone to write a costly abstraction doesn't take away from Rust any more than the possibility of doing that in C++ would from whether C++ has them. |
|
Is how I understood the post.
Anyway there's noting wrong with rust FFI. The overhead was because this function wanted to support two options and didn't implement that in the best way.