Gregory's Server@Archivist @crazyeddie @scherzog @lina
I dug around for the article so I could reference it and I've linked it here. I'm referring to the second column of the first chart, which tracks runtime.
https://thenewstack.io/which-programming-languages-use-the-least-electricity/
Their tests might be a bit simplistic, but even in more complex tests, Rust might be able to optimize more heavily in situations where C wouldn't be able to.
It's annoying to realize, that, for example, PHP is 27 times slower than C.
@rastilin oh yeah, I remember that one. The C++ code they used was pretty bad, they were writing C++ as if it were Java and taking a bunch of overhead. Expect that C++ is generally between Rust and C in performance (Rust advantage here being not following calling convention that C++ must abide too to just compile, C++ advantage being not taking 6 million years to compile the 24 million lines of the codebase)