Our great sponsors
-
WorkOS
The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS. The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning.
-
-
-
-
WebKit
Home of the WebKit project, the browser engine used by Safari, Mail, App Store and many other applications on macOS, iOS and Linux.
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
Yep. A few years ago I implemented a skip list based rope library in C[1], and after learning rust I eventually ported it over[2].
The rust implementation was much less code than the C version. It generated a bigger assembly but it ran 20% faster or so. (I don't know why it ran faster than the C version - this was before the noalias analysis was turned on in the compiler).
Its now about 3x faster than C, thanks to some use of clever layered data structures. I could implement those optimizations in C, but I find rust easier to work with.
C has advantages, but performance is a bad reason to choose C over rust. In my experience, the runtime bounds checks it adds are remarkably cheap from a performance perspective. And its more than offset by the extra optimizations the rust compiler can do thanks to the extra knowledge the compiler has about your program. If my experience is anything to go by, naively porting C programs to rust would result in faster code a lot of the time.
And I find it easier to optimize rust code compared to C code, thanks to generics and the (excellent) crates ecosystem. If I was optimizing for runtime speed, I'd pick rust over C every time.
[1] https://github.com/josephg/librope
[2] https://github.com/josephg/jumprope-rs
Yep. A few years ago I implemented a skip list based rope library in C[1], and after learning rust I eventually ported it over[2].
The rust implementation was much less code than the C version. It generated a bigger assembly but it ran 20% faster or so. (I don't know why it ran faster than the C version - this was before the noalias analysis was turned on in the compiler).
Its now about 3x faster than C, thanks to some use of clever layered data structures. I could implement those optimizations in C, but I find rust easier to work with.
C has advantages, but performance is a bad reason to choose C over rust. In my experience, the runtime bounds checks it adds are remarkably cheap from a performance perspective. And its more than offset by the extra optimizations the rust compiler can do thanks to the extra knowledge the compiler has about your program. If my experience is anything to go by, naively porting C programs to rust would result in faster code a lot of the time.
And I find it easier to optimize rust code compared to C code, thanks to generics and the (excellent) crates ecosystem. If I was optimizing for runtime speed, I'd pick rust over C every time.
[1] https://github.com/josephg/librope
[2] https://github.com/josephg/jumprope-rs
check this out: https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/bmalloc/li...
Made this C lib for exactly the reasons you mention. I love C but got mad at the constant bounds errors and copying.
https://github.com/alcover/buffet
> any safety checks put into the competing language will have a runtime cost, which often is unacceptable
This is completely wrong. The best counterexample is probably ATS http://www.ats-lang.org which is compatible with C, yet also features dependent types (allowing us to prove arbitrary statements about our programs, and check them at compile time) and linear type (allowing us to precisely track resource usage; similar to Rust)
A good example is http://ats-lang.sourceforge.net/DOCUMENT/ATS2CAIRO/HTML/c36.... which uses the Cairo graphics library, and ends with the following:
> It may seem that using cairo functions in ATS is nearly identical to using them in C (modulo syntatical difference). However, what happens at the level of typechecking in ATS is far more sophisticated than in C. In particular, linear types are assigned to cairo objects (such as contexts, surfaces, patterns, font faces, etc.) in ATS to allow them to be tracked statically, that is, at compile-time, preventing potential mismanagement of such objects. For instance, if the following line:
val () = cairo_surface_destroy (sf) // a type error if omitted