Speed of Rust vs. C
&gt; For example, in C I&#x27;d be tempted to reuse a buffer allocated for one purpose for another purpose later (a technique known as HEARTBLEED).<p>You can do that in Java (with byte arrays) or in Common Lisp, so what is the point here? It is not practice in Java, Lisp nor in C and C++.<p>&gt; It&#x27;s convenient to have fixed-size buffers for variable-size data (e.g. PATH_MAX) to avoid (re)allocation of growing buffers<p>This is because OS&#x2F;Kernel&#x2F;filesystem guarantee path max size.<p>&gt; Idiomatic Rust still gives a lot control over memory allocation, and can do basics like memory pools, ... but in general it steers users towards &quot;boring&quot; use or memory.<p>The same is done by sane C libraries (e.g. glib).<p>&gt; Every operating system ships some built-in standard C library that is ~30MB of code that C executables get for &quot;free&quot;, e.g. a &quot;Hello World&quot; C executable can&#x27;t actually print anything, it only calls the printf shipped with the OS.<p>printf is not shipped with the OS, but with libc runtime. It doesn&#x27;t have to be runtime (author needs to learn why this libc runtime is shared library and not the usually statically linked library) and you can use minimal implementations (musl) if you want static binaries with minimal size.<p>So you are saying Rust doesn&#x27;t call (g)libc at all and directly invoke kernel interrupts? Sure, you can avoid this print &quot;overhead&quot; in C with 3-4 lines of inline assembly, but, why?<p>&gt; Rust by default can inline functions from the standard library, dependencies, and other compilation units.<p>So do C compiler.<p>&gt; In C I&#x27;m sometimes reluctant to split files or use libraries, because it affects inlining and requires micromanagement of headers and symbol visibility.<p>Functions doesn&#x27;t have to be in headers to be inlined.<p>&gt; C libraries typically return opaque pointers to their data structures, to hide implementation details and ensure there&#x27;s only one copy of each instance of the struct. This costs heap allocations and pointer indirections. Rust&#x27;s built-in privacy, unique ownership rules, and coding conventions let libraries expose their objects by value, so that library users decide whether to put them on the heap or on the stack. Objects on the stack can can be optimized very aggressively, and even optimized out entirely.<p>WTF? Stopped reading after this.<p>I find this post a random nonsense and I&#x27;d urge author to read some serious C book.