https://programming-language-benchmarks.vercel.app/c-vs-rust
I understand that anytime someone brings benchmarks out, the next response points out that benchmarks are not real world use cases. Nonetheless, they are data points, and your claims are against the commonly accepted view of C being roughly as fast as C++ and Rust. If you have absolutely no data to back it up, you shouldn't expect anyone to believe you.
Zig does not do any work because it does not have smart pointers and it does not try to be safe. It tries to be explicit and predictable, the rest is my job.
BTW: This is very real, I've been profiling this and I couldn't believe my eyes. And even if they fixed it already there would be many similar footguns. You can't write performant software if you can't tell what work will be done.
You can decide to not use frequent heap allocations in Rust or C++ just as you can in Zig (it means not using large areas of the C++ or Rust standard libraries, while Zig definitely has the better approach when it comes to allocations in the standard library, but these are stdlib features, not language features).
So in a language which actively makes your life miserable in the name of safety, you will likely just use Vec<T> because it's easy. Hence, back to the previous point - Vec<T> is slow -> your code is slow and it's not even obvious why because everybody does that so it looks like you're doing it right.
It is 100% possible to use such style in Rust/C++ (and then the performance will be same or maybe even in favor of rust, it might be the case) but people usually do not do that.
https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
