Is Rust better than C/C++ ?

Published Date: 2025/08/14 by: DaVieS

Rust is a relatively new programming language that offers memory safety and automated management features, while C and C++ have a long history and are considered “low-level” languages where you need to know exactly what you’re doing — otherwise, your program will crash or produce errors. The truth is, the same principle applies to Rust: if you don’t understand what you’re doing, you can still write buggy code.

There is a common misunderstanding about programming in general.

Programming is not just about learning how to write code. It requires talent, discipline, logical thinking, analytical skills, and much more. Many people simply don’t have the necessary aptitude, and as a result, may never become truly skilled programmers. Those individuals might be better served by easier, more “foolproof” languages that allow them to work safely within strict boundaries.

Surprisingly, many developers lack even a basic understanding of how computers work. For example, a 32-bit unsigned integer can hold up to 2³² = 4,294,967,296. Divide that number by 1024 three times (to convert bytes to gigabytes), and you get 4. That’s why 32-bit operating systems can’t really handle more than 4GB of RAM. Now it makes sense.

Most of the developers does not even know a thing about how computers work, I mean just a basics, like so a 32bit integer can hold up 2^32 = 4294967296 value if it unsigned. If we divide this large number by 1024 three times, that would be represent the number as 4. Thats why the 32bit operating systems does not really supports more RAM than 4GB. Now it makes sense.

A competent C/C++ developer should know facts like this — otherwise their programs may be inefficient or simply fail. Rust, on the other hand, allows you to accomplish tasks without fully understanding the underlying machine-level details, and you might still get “okay” results.

Rust uses crates (packages) to load external libraries, such as OpenSSL (which is still mostly C, even when used in Rust). If you’re lucky, parts of your project may already exist in ready-to-use form. This can be convenient for developers who don’t want to dive deep into the low-level details.

However, the recent trend of declaring that “C/C++ is bad and should be eliminated” is misguided. Replacing them with Rust (or any language) will not magically eliminate bugs — because bugs come from developers, not languages. Allowing people to build software without the required foundational knowledge will always lead to problems.

Most major operating systems — macOS, Linux, Windows — are written primarily in C or C++. C/C++ developers are unlikely to switch to Rust, because the syntax and philosophy of these languages are tied closely to how the machine itself works. Those who hate C/C++ often do so because they never acquired the skills to use them effectively — and wishing for their disappearance is both wrong and selfish.

If I wanted a faster, safer, and more flexible development process, I’d embed a scripting language like Lua or Squirrel into C/C++ rather than switching entirely to Rust. This way, I can combine low-level power with high-level safety and speed.

C and C++ are core languages. Forcing their replacement is unrealistic, an attack on developer freedom, and frankly, nonsense. Rust is not inherently faster than C/C++ — unless you compare decades-old C++ code with brand-new Rust code.

Rust has its place, and in many areas, it could replace Java. But it is not a replacement for C or C++.

Conclusion: No, Rust is not “better” than C/C++.