Rust vs. C++ is one of the most interesting programming language debates. Both are widely used in system-level development and have steep learning curves compared to other popular programming languages like PHP, making them critical tools in software development. 

Today, there are many Rust developers who swear by the language, just as there are many programmers who swear by C++. Since both languages are used for similar tasks, comparing and contrasting them is critical for organizations interested in using them.

So, can the newcomer Rust, released in the early 2010s, match the versatility, speed, and other qualities of C++, it's much older counterpart? The Rust Vs C++ discussion has raged on for years, so let's weight in. 

What is C++?

Let's start with C++, the language with the most history of the two. C and the C family in general are the most well-known and venerable programming languages on the market.

C++ is an object-oriented system programming language created and released by Bjarne Stroustrup in 1983. Like Rust, C++ is a powerful system programming tool. C++ vastly improved the C programming language and was a revolutionary solution at its release. 

Most Microsoft operating systems, such as Windows 95, 98, and XP, were developed using C++. Linux, was also developed in C, although its community has controversially turned to Rust in the last few years; more on that later. 

C++’s fast performance, reusable code modules, and determined code structure have made it a popular choice in various development projects. In addition, since C++ is a multipurpose compiled language has been used to build just about anything, from operating systems to embedded devices to machine learning and AI (ML/AI).

In the years since it’s inception, many developers have attempted to build and release what has come to be known as “C killers”. These are programming languages designed from the ground up to provide the same benefits as the C++ programming language, while attempting to fix some of the most well-known issues associated with the C family. 

These would-be C killers are generally met with mixed success, but in the last decade, Rust has changed this. 

What is Rust?

As mentioned, Rust is a much newer programming language, developed in 2010 by tech company Mozilla and used in the creation of its popular Internet browser, Firefox. More than once, it has been dubbed the most desired programming language by Stack Overflow’s annual developer survey.

Like many C killers, Rust was specifically developed to address C++’s shortcomings, mainly inefficiencies related to memory and concurrent programming. Rust intends to be simpler and safer, without losing most of the low-level programming benefits. 

In many ways, Rust is very similar to C++, but some regard it as being significantly more convenient and versatile. It provides detailed control capabilities such as manual memory management and a built-in immediate-mode GUI framework as well as a binary code designed to be as small as possible, and to compile quickly with little overhead. 

The Rust programming language community is also known for being quite supportive and inclusive, giving everyone all the tools they might need to get up to speed quickly. Considering all of these factors, Rust is extremely accessible to newcomers, and it should be no surprise that this language has spread like wildfire. 

Linux, historically written in C, has an enthusiastic community that created an ongoing project, Rust fox Linux. The debate has gone mainstream, to the point that Linus Torvald, founder of Linux, came out to publicly weigh in on the discussion, saying:

"C is, in the end, a very simple language. It's one of the reasons I enjoy C and why a lot of C programmers enjoy C, even if the other side of that picture is obviously that because it's simple it's also very easy to make mistakes [...] 

Some people care about specific architectures, and some people like file systems, and that's how it should be. That's how I see Rust."

Rust vs. C++: A comparison

Now, let’s go a bit further into the differences and similarities between Rust and C++. As you can imagine, both languages have a lot in common, but they can present their own unique advantages and disadvantages depending on your project. Let’s get into it. 

Performance

The performance of Rust vs C++ is a frequently debated topic, with each language excelling in different areas. Both are known for their effectiveness in system-level development and memory control capabilities. 

Rust’s ownership and borrowing system is designed to eliminate runtime errors, such as data races and dangling pointers, through its sophisticated type system. Rust’s robust tools ensure that code flaws only lead to compilation errors and not runtime errors. However, too many runtime errors can lengthen the development time and increase costs.

C++ can produce fast applications while spending less time on code compilation and execution than Rust. C++’s performance levels can be attributed to its vast standard codebase and smaller assembly code.

Similarly, C++ has earned acclaim for its speed and memory management capabilities. Although Rust just about edges it on the memory safety front, C++’s manual memory management makes it a more flexible option suitable for software developers who value more control. 

Coding Speed  

Coding speed is a major consideration for mobile app and web developers. Rust programs can be written faster than C++ due largely to its elaborated semantics and system for preventing undesired behaviors. One of the significant issues with C++ is that avoiding undefined behaviors can be difficult and cause major delays. 

Code Quality 

Overall, Rust better code validation tools than C++. C++ lacks measures to prevent coding errors and spot code issues before compiling the entire program.

Rust offers developers far more attentive code quality measures and is effective at preventing data races. Its standard library allows developers to extensively remodel data structures while maintaining their API, which is a significant advantage over C++. The most impressive of these measures is the Rust compiler, which ensures that the Rust code developers write adheres to the official style.

These measures can also help expedite the development process since more issues are caught in the early stages before the code is compiled. However, some developers prefer turning off the compiler, since they find it too restrictive. 

Extensions 

C++ is almost 30 years ahead of Rust, which means it has more frameworks and libraries available. 

Although Rust has a small standard codebase library and few options to extend its capabilities, it's important to note that Rust is still evolving,  with new tools and frameworks are constantly being developed. 

Support and Community

Similarly to our last point, C++ has a significant advantage due to its maturity. As a result, there is a wealth of information and support services for C++. 

On the other hand, Rust has gained an impressively large community, given its age. Rust programmers with a foundational knowledge of C tend to create more elegant and efficient solutions. Although it might still not compare, it will certainly grow as the years go by. 

Development Costs

Generally, it costs more to hire developers for Rust than C++ since they are less common in the job marked. As a result, it is more expensive to develop a program using Rust. However, since Rust has more code quality protections in place, your team might spend less time correcting errors and thus reduce costs. 

Additionally, unless your organization has an experienced C++ developer, it is easy to create errors and spend more time fixing them. 

Memory

If memory safety is an issue that is important to you, Rust might be the better option. While both languages utilize smart pointers, C++, and most other system-level languages, do not offer automatic memory management to improve performance.

Rust’s ownership and borrowing system facilitates high speed, minimizing the risk of crashes, data leaks, and exploits, thereby boosting the language’s security. Rust’s concurrency features also provide safe abstractions for memory safety that prevent data races and other concurrency-related vulnerabilities. 

On the other hand, C++ offers more low-level control and flexibility, with its manual memory management, which can be both an advantage and a challenge. This means that developers have more responsibility to avoid security vulnerabilities. C++ provides a wide range of features that can be leveraged for security, but it also requires careful programming skills to circumvent potential issues.

Learning Curve 

For inexperienced programmers, both languages can be quite challenging. A problem many software developers encounter when picking up Rust for the first time is the relatively steep learning curve. Despite its performance and security benefits, the language’s ownership, enum-based error handling and borrowing systems can be difficult to comprehend. 

Although C++ can be challenging for computer programming novices, those with prior programming experience (especially in C, Java or Python) may find it relatively straightforward to get to grips with the language. Nevertheless, there are aspects of C++ that are notoriously difficult, such as pointers, manual memory management, and object-oriented paradigms. 

Will Rust replace C++?

Predicting the future of technology is difficult. Although Rust has still emerged as a great and useful language in its own right, that doesn't mean it will be the chosen C killer some are expecting it to be. 

If you’re wondering which language is better to learn, that answer depends on your goals. If you want to learn a highly capable, complex language that can lead to job opportunities developing systems programming, computer vision, and Artificial Intelligence, choose C++.

C++ has a large support community and a lot of libraries and frameworks, making it a staple in systems programming. Rust is easier to use and produces code with better memory safety on average, something that a White House report has recently declared as a priority for any software developer.

Rust is also better suited for projects that require performance, safety, and concurrency without compromising on low-level control. This includes Web Services, API’s, CLI tools and other security-sensitive applications.

Likely, both low-level languages will continue to coexist. Rust could gradually take over in areas where memory safety is paramount, while C++ maintains its stronghold in performance-critical and legacy systems.

Choosing the right language for your project

This comparison between Rust and C++ is quite a toss-up, pointing at one language and declaring it a winner would be a mistake. Ultimately, choosing which one to use hinges on your specific priorities and project requirements. 

The performance battle between of Rust vs. C++ is a tie, emphasizing the need for those involved in system-level development to carefully weigh the trade-offs based on their unique needs. Whether you prioritize cutting-edge security features or a well-established ecosystem, both languages have thriving communities ready to support your endeavors.

Fortunately, you might not even need to compromise; Rust and C++ are very similar and integration between them ultimately is possible. 

Conclusion

When it comes to a programming languages comparison, Rust and C++ stand out as top contenders for system-level development, and the debate ultimately showcases the strengths and challenges found in both.

Ultimately, your choice between Rust and C++ should be driven by project needs, team expertise, and long-term goals. Both languages can achieve remarkable outcomes, and their communities are thriving, offering ample resources for learning and development. 

For now, it seems Rust and C++ will coexist, each filling its niche, and in some cases, even complementing each other. The real winner in the Rust vs. C++ debate isn't one language or the other—it's the developers who get to choose from two robust tools, each capable of delivering excellence when applied to the right project.