When I wrote “a small price to pay”, I actually quoted somebody. I just didn’t say so because I can’t find the source now. But if I recall it was a AAA dev testing out Rust, and it was also more engine related and nightmare grade bugs that delay projects and cost major project issues. Anyways…
Also I didn’t say game logic, so to clarify, because when I use metrics like “FPS” it sounds like a game. The scenario I was thinking of would be pure software code, no hardware acceleration. If you make an actual game engine with game logic written in Rust. You would have a ton of graphics code running on the GPU, not CPU. It would be way smaller than 10FPS loss in real world. With code that doesn’t show GC issues because of their small size, those small size codes you wouldn’t notice any FPS drop compared to C++, I think.
Disclaimer, I’m still learning Rust. Thinks can be worse, but also better. I’m not a web expert at all either, but I noticed benchmarks that show Rust competing with C++ code speed wise: https://www.techempower.com/benchmar…h&test=fortune
Notice how in the linked benchmarks above there is C++ code that can’t even got faster than Java and C#… clearly those source codes need better algorithms… having to bother less about the language short comings of C++, could give more time on algorithm speed ups.
I haven’t tried it yet, but it should be simpler. Rust is a safe language. That mans it’s also thread safe.