And in the cases where you are in a hot loop you just have to put in a little extra effort to optimise it and gain the performance back, either by writing the code in a way that allows the compiler to prove correctness (e.g. using an iterator or assert), or by using the unsage keyword to "pinky-promise" to the compiler that your usage is correct.
IME that extra effort in performance-critical places almost always ends up being a lot less than the effort needed to avoid correctness/safety issues in mundane boilerplate/glue/plumbing code in C++.
Especially as Rust's package management system means that often you don't even have to do that optimisation work yourself: you can just pull in a crate that's done it for you (and Rust's safety guarantees make that a much less scary thing to do than it is in C++)
Did you generate your comment using LLM?
> negligable
Negligible.
(It was hand written. Typos and all.)
Is it a "good thing" in all ways? Does it make Rust slower than C++ in some cases? And if Rust wants to catch up to C++ in regards to performance, do you believe that Rust people like yourself will have to convince C++ language people to remove time travel optimizations? Not very nice or honorable of you. Why not focus on making Rust faster instead?
Edit:
Why does kibwen sound like a cheap whore putting on airs? As if, kibwen couldn't be honest or competent even if its (pronoun: thing) life depended on it.