>>106972089
>rust
>performance
errr, no.
just no.
its decently fast but its way slower than c
unless you write c. in rust. which completely defeats the purpose of the language.

to be fair it may find a use in osshit and servers, if you have to deal with a constant personnel churn.
i wouldnt use it as it is now, but theoretically rust could bring new stuff to the table.
still, its not a solution desirable to any degree when performance is your chief concern

seriously
why the fuck would i bother with safety mechanisms only to promptly ignore them?
why would i care about a standard library if im gonna reimplement everything myself anyways?
makes negative sense. also bc if you min max into memory retention by learning everything there is under the sun, well, you minmaxed into memory retention.
at the cost of your problem solving.