Please share your measurements of "real-world performance" that are "not very correlated" with the benchmarks game's results.
edit: Please provide a better response than downmods.
edit: Please provide a better response than downmods.
Just a URL to published comparison measurements would be so much more interesting for anyone interested in Rust, than downmods.
(There seem to have been plenty of breaking language changes in the last 6 months.)
(The "faster" bit isn't important; various reasons might have made C++ slower than Rust for this, but what is important is that perf was comparable)
What I questioned was Rusky's technical-sounding but apparently unsupported claim that "the benchmarks game's results are not very correlated with real-world performance." For Rusky to know he'd need some kind-of "real-world performance" measurements and a correlation coefficient - neither of which have been shown.
In this context, Rust's semantics do allow C-level performance- they make it straightforward to describe the same machine code that C would. In some cases, they even enable more compiler optimizations than C does.
Java, on the other hand, makes it hard or impossible to do that (straightforwardly at least). A more mature compiler will make a lot of difference- compare early Java performance to where it is now, for example.