Re: does a safer language mean it is slower to run?

["Luke A. Guest" <laguest@archeia.com>]

On 08/06/2023 04:55, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
> Some folks in this thread
> 
> https://discourse.julialang.org/t/comparison-of-rust-to-julia-for-scientific-computing/78508
> 
> "I’m not an expert, but my feeling is that Rust is a “safer” language,
> which to me means it must be slower."

What these idiots ^ never do is define "slow," slow compared to WHAT? 
They also don't seem to realise we basically use supercomputers now, 
these things are way more powerful than the 8-bit/16-bit cpu's of the 
70's and 80's. This mentality has come from there where optimisation at 
the assembly level to pick the faster (less clock cycles) instructions.

And they always just say "Oh, that's SLOW!" I had the same when I joined 
that games company, "we don't use virtuals, because they're SLOW." No, 
they might be a tad slower in clock cycles.

These people also don't do safety, they don't do checks most of the time 
and just want to make stuff as "fast" as possible without doing anything 
to make sure it works correctly.