Rust vs C++: A Real-World Perspective

The real-world implications of choosing a programming language over another are often nuanced. This is especially true for the ongoing debate between Rust and C++. It’s easy to get lost in theoretical arguments about safety, performance, and language features, but what does it really boil down to when rubber hits the road?

I recently sat down with Tyler Weaver, Co-Organizer of the Boulder Rust Meetup and software engineer with a decade of C++ experience and several years of Rust under his belt. He shared some great insights on the practical aspects of working with both languages in production, which I thought would be valuable to share.

While Tyler’s perspective is based on his personal experience, I believe his insights are quite valuable for anyone looking for hands-on experiences with both languages. The quotes below are taken verbatim from our conversation.

Rust is a Force Multiplier

One of Tyler’s most striking observations is that “Rust is a force multiplier.” In C++ projects, developers often find themselves barely having time to get things working, let alone optimizing or improving their code. Rust, on the other hand, handles many low-level details by design, allowing developers to focus on higher-level concerns instead. As Tyler puts it, you can “spend more time on useful things because Rust handles the details for you.”

This effect extends to code reviews as well. Tyler estimates that “code reviews take half the time” in Rust compared to C++. This efficiency gain is not just about saving time; it allows for more thorough reviews and potentially catches more issues before they make it into production.

This aligns well with an observation by Google on re-writing C++ into Rust:

In every case, we’ve seen a decrease by more than 2x in the amount of effort required to both build the services written in Rust, as well as maintain and update those services. […] C++ is very expensive for us to maintain.

Painless Refactoring

Perhaps one of the areas where Rust shines the most is during large-scale refactoring. Tyler emphasizes that “Rust makes refactoring painless” and allows developers to “trust your refactors.” This “worry-free refactoring” is a stark contrast to C++, where making significant changes can be risky and time-consuming.

“In C++, removing things is so expensive,” both in terms of development time and the potential for introducing bugs. Rust’s ownership system and compiler checks make it much easier to make sweeping changes with confidence. This capability is particularly valuable for large-scale projects where regular refactoring is essential for maintaining code quality and adapting to changing requirements.

Mozilla twice attempted to parallelize Firefox’s CSS layout engine in C++, but abandoned both efforts. Eventually, they succeeded on the third attempt using Rust in the Servo project, which was later integrated into Firefox as part of Project Quantum. The team credited Rust’s safety guarantees as the reason why they were able to be successful on the third attempt. Here’s the section from the talk by Josh Matthews from the Servo team.

Jeremy Soller from System76 recently shared a similar sentiment in our Rust in Production podcast:

Rust [has] capability [of] doing extremely, extremely concurrent things safely. There was no way to write this kind of code in C or C++ without considerable time planning beforehand.

The Cost of Complexity

Tyler points out that “accidental complexity is quite high in C++.” This complexity often manifests in subtle ways that can accumulate over time, making codebases increasingly difficult to maintain. In our conversation, Tyler mentioned that there is a lot of upfront knowledge required to be productive in C++. One has to read a lot of books and watch talks to become an expert because a lot of the best practices are passed on as tribal knowledge and there is a lot of historical baggage in C++.

In contrast, Rust’s design encourages simplicity and clarity from the start, allowing developers to “focus on the right things.”

Tyler emphasizes that “none of our software projects are as simple as they could be.” Rust’s approach to memory management and its emphasis on explicit handling of side effects can lead to simpler, more maintainable code structures.

If you are curious to learn more about maintaining large C++ codebases and migrating to Rust, listen to this interview with Brendan Abolivier from Thunderbird from our “Rust in Production” podcast series.

Tooling

Better tooling leads to better projects, and Rust has a significant edge in this area. From cargo, Rust’s package manager and build tool, to the language server protocol implementation, Rust’s tooling ecosystem is modern and integrated. This cohesive tooling environment contributes to more efficient development workflows and higher-quality output.

Acknowledging Rust’s Current Limitations

While Tyler’s perspective paints a very positive picture of Rust, it’s important to address some common criticisms of the language:

1. Learning Curve: Rust is known for having a steeper learning curve than C++, particularly for developers accustomed to more traditional programming paradigms. The borrow checker, while powerful, can be frustrating for newcomers. However, according to Google’s experience, more than 2/3 of respondents are confident in contributing to a Rust codebase within two months or less when learning Rust. Further, a third of respondents become as productive using Rust as other languages in two months or less. Within four months, that number increased to over 50%. Read more about the learning curve in Why Rust.

2. Ecosystem Maturity: Rust’s ecosystem is still not as mature yet as C++’s in some domains. Certain specialized libraries or frameworks may not be available or as feature-complete in Rust.

3. Industry Adoption: Despite growing interest, Rust has not yet achieved the same level of industry-wide adoption as C++, which may be a consideration for some projects or companies. C++ is still dominant in domains like game development, high-performance computing, and embedded systems.

C++ and Rust Interop

Recognizing that a complete switch from C++ to Rust is not always feasible or desirable, Tyler suggests that “dumb interop is the best strategy for C++ and Rust to work together.” This approach allows teams to gradually introduce Rust into existing C++ codebases, leveraging the strengths of both languages. He mentioned, that while people often raise concerns about C++/Rust interop, it’s rarely an issue in practice.

Tyler wrote a series of blog posts on Rust and C++ interop that go into great detail about integrating Rust into C++ projects, which covers FFI bindings, CMake (a build system generator for C++ projects), Cxx (a code generation tool), Conan (a C++ package manager), and more.

It is recommended to start with the most safety-critical or unreliable parts of your codebase:

What you have to do is think about how important security is at each level of the stack and how to address it in small incremental ways. - Jeremy Soller in the Rust in Production podcast

Summary

Here are some key takeaways from Tyler’s experiences with Rust and C++:

• You have more time to focus on the big picture when using Rust.
• Refactoring is easier and less risky in Rust.
• Removing things is hard in C++. It’s easier in Rust thanks to the borrow checker.
• Rust doesn’t have the historical baggage of C++. It comes with sane defaults.
• Rust’s integrated tooling contributes to more efficient development workflows.
• Interop between Rust and C++ is best done by keeping interfaces simple.

As Tyler’s experiences illustrate, the benefits of Rust often become most apparent in the “day two operations” of software development – in code reviews, refactoring, and managing complexity.

Recommended Reading

For those interested in diving deeper into the topics discussed in this article, here are a few book recommendations:

• “Grokking Simplicity” by Eric Normand. Published by Manning.
• “Programming Rust” by Jim Blandy and Jason Orendorff. Published by O’Reilly.
• “Effective Modern C++” by Scott Meyers. Published by O’Reilly.

These three books teach you how to write clean, maintainable code no matter the language.

If you like to learn more about Tyler’s work, check out his blog and GitHub profile.