← Back to context Comment by quotemstr 17 days ago Yeah. Rust, good or bad, affords no special performance advantage for IO performance. 4 comments quotemstr Reply acdha 17 days ago Not innately, no, but the kinds of optimizations they’re talking about batching operations and avoiding copies are certainly safer to make using a memory safe language. cultofmetatron 17 days ago correct, stable, fast <- rust's whole deal is giving normal people a chance of building something that gets you all 3. J_Shelby_J 17 days ago I touch rust every day, but you should also mention the priority of those three things are also in that order.
acdha 17 days ago Not innately, no, but the kinds of optimizations they’re talking about batching operations and avoiding copies are certainly safer to make using a memory safe language.
cultofmetatron 17 days ago correct, stable, fast <- rust's whole deal is giving normal people a chance of building something that gets you all 3. J_Shelby_J 17 days ago I touch rust every day, but you should also mention the priority of those three things are also in that order.
J_Shelby_J 17 days ago I touch rust every day, but you should also mention the priority of those three things are also in that order.
Not innately, no, but the kinds of optimizations they’re talking about batching operations and avoiding copies are certainly safer to make using a memory safe language.
correct, stable, fast <- rust's whole deal is giving normal people a chance of building something that gets you all 3.
I touch rust every day, but you should also mention the priority of those three things are also in that order.