Reduced your what? The article seems to be cut off.
Rust is a programming language. Performance is a mix of programmer's ability, clever design and compiler optimizations.
Many supporting crates reinforced this. Rayon, Tokio (though not "performant", it was an improvement over naive impl), etc made jumping from hello world to parallel/concurrent execution pretty simple.
But I'm glad to see the downturn on that hype cycle.
Rust has features that make it easier to make correct and performant software, I think most programmers would agree?
Please stop this rust clickbait nonsense.
But then new content on HN would decline to nearly nothing.
Judging from the most vocal segment of their community it's very much not obvious to them.
> make it easier
Define "easier." It's harder to make mistakes. I'm not sure this equates to developer "ease" in any way. In fact, if it's meant to be effective, it should be quite the opposite.
> rust clickbait nonsense.
It cuts both ways. There is a huge volume of "I switched to Rust and got 1% additional performance over C" posts here.
(I like Rust btw)
I.e. don't need to keep track of the memory for each allocation in my HTTP request and make sure I clean it up before closing the connection, I can just allocate some memory _per request_, put stuff in it, and at the end it gets cleaned up, whether I used the memory or not.
Some languages have the idea of "memory allocators" as a native construct, so that you can actually start thinking about managing memory in more sensible terms than "everything individually", e.g. Odin lang.
So what you say is definitely true if you do an allocation heavy, heap fragmenting, RAII style of programming. Which is the context Rust was born in, right? A kind of C++ app dev context where that was (is?) the prevailing meta.
You're also completely glossing over the incredible complexity you get in all thee weird intersection of rust features. And there are a LOT of features. Reasoning about those are not free from a mental overhead stand point.
