Is Rust faster than C?

Re:Is Rust faster than C? by m-schuetz on Wednesday January 14, 2026 @09:52AM (#46616685)

I'm still confused as to why linux requires linking against TBB for multithreading, thus breaking cmake configs without if(linux) for tbb. That stuff should be included by default without any effort by the developer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is Rust faster than C? by sebtron on Wednesday January 14, 2026 @10:02AM (#46616802)

I think this is related to the C++ standard library implementation.

Using pthread in C, for example, TBB is not required.

Not sure about C11 threads, but I have always thought that GLIBC just uses pthread under the hood.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is Rust faster than C? by m-schuetz on Wednesday January 14, 2026 @10:28AM (#46617124)

I don't know the details since I'm mainly a windows dev, but when porting to linux, TBB has always been a huge pain in the ass since it's a suddenly additionally required dependency by gcc. Using C++ and std::thread.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is Rust faster than C? by pjmlp on Wednesday January 14, 2026 @11:02AM (#46617649)

Also clang, and in general parallel algorithms aren't available outside of platforms not supported by TBB.

C++26 will get another similar dependency, because BLAS algorithms are going to be added, but apparently the expectation is to build on top of C/Fortran BLAS battle tested implementations.

[ Parent | on HN ]