Why Rust is Becoming the New C++

It was 2 AM, and I was staring at yet another segmentation fault in our C++ codebase. The issue? A subtle memory ownership problem buried deep in our threading logic. After spending hours with Valgrind and GDB, I finally tracked down the culprit: a classic use-after-free bug that only manifested under heavy load.

That was three years ago. Last week, I completed a similar multi-threaded component in Rust, and despite my best efforts to break it with stress testing, it remains rock solid. The compiler caught my potential race conditions and memory issues before the code even ran.

This stark contrast is why I believe Rust is steadily replacing C++ for new systems programming projects. It's not happening overnight—C++ has a 40-year head start and billions of lines of existing code—but the shift is undeniable.

The Rise of Rust: Not Just Another Language

Rust's adoption has been remarkable. StackOverflow's developer survey has ranked it as the "most loved" language for seven consecutive years. Major tech companies like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Meta, and Mozilla are investing heavily in Rust codebases.

But what exactly is driving this shift? Through my journey from C++ to Rust across multiple projects, I've identified several key factors.

Memory Safety Without Garbage Collection

C++ gives you powerful control over memory management, but this power comes with significant responsibility. Rust's ownership system with borrowing rules provides memory safety guarantees at compile time without sacrificing performance.

Here's a simple example of how Rust prevents common memory bugs:

fn main() {
    let mut data = vec![1, 2, 3];
    
    // Create a reference to the data
    let reference = &data;
    
    // This would compile in C++ but fails in Rust:
    data.push(4);  // Error: cannot borrow `data` as mutable because it's also borrowed as immutable
    
    println!("{:?}", reference);
}

The compiler immediately flags the potential issue: you can't modify data while an immutable reference exists. In C++, this could lead to a dangling reference if the vector needed to reallocate memory during the push operation.

Concurrency Without Fear

Modern software increasingly relies on concurrency, yet writing thread-safe code in C++ remains challenging. Race conditions, deadlocks, and data races are notoriously difficult to debug.

Rust's ownership model extends to concurrency, making it impossible to compile code with data races:

use std::thread;

fn main() {
    let mut counter = 0;
    
    let handle = thread::spawn(|| {
        // This fails to compile
        counter += 1;  // Error: closure may outlive the current function, but it borrows `counter`
    });
    
    counter += 1;
    handle.join().unwrap();
}

The compiler prevents you from accessing counter from multiple threads without proper synchronization. To fix this in Rust, you'd need to explicitly use synchronization primitives or message passing, making the concurrency model explicit rather than implicit.

Modern Language Features Without Legacy Baggage

C++ has evolved significantly, with C++11/14/17/20 adding many modern features. However, it carries decades of legacy baggage and backward compatibility constraints. Rust was designed from the ground up with modern programming concepts:

• Pattern matching and algebraic data types
• A powerful and consistent trait system (similar to type classes or interfaces)
• First-class support for async/await
• A module system that makes dependencies explicit
• A consistent and well-designed standard library

Here's a real-world example from a project where I replaced error-prone C++ code with more expressive Rust:

// C++ version (simplified)
std::variant<User, DatabaseError, NetworkError> getUserById(int id) {
    // implementation
}

// Usage requires verbose pattern matching
auto result = getUserById(123);
if (std::holds_alternative<User>(result)) {
    User user = std::get<User>(result);
    // use user
} else if (std::holds_alternative<DatabaseError>(result)) {
    // handle database error
} else {
    // handle network error
}

// Rust version
fn get_user_by_id(id: i32) -> Result<User, Error> {
    // implementation
}

// Usage with concise pattern matching
match get_user_by_id(123) {
    Ok(user) => { /* use user */ },
    Err(Error::Database(e)) => { /* handle database error */ },
    Err(Error::Network(e)) => { /* handle network error */ }
}

The Rust version is not only more concise but also safer—the compiler ensures you handle all possible error cases.

Real-World Rust Success Stories

Theory is one thing, but what about actual production use? Here are some notable examples where Rust has proven its value:

Systems Programming: The Original Target

Rust was originally designed for systems programming, and it's excelling in this domain:

• Mozilla's Servo browser engine demonstrated that Rust could be used for performance-critical components
• Microsoft has been exploring Rust for security-critical Windows components to address the fact that ~70% of their security vulnerabilities stem from memory safety issues
• Linux kernel now officially supports Rust for drivers and modules (which would have been unthinkable a few years ago)

Cloud Infrastructure

Cloud native tools have been rapid Rust adopters:

• AWS has built services like Firecracker (the technology powering Lambda and Fargate) in Rust
• Dropbox rewrote their sync engine in Rust, reducing code size by 90% while improving performance
• Cloudflare uses Rust for their edge computing platform Workers

I recently worked on a project to replace a C++ service that processed high-volume telemetry data. The Rust rewrite was:

• 30% faster
• Used 40% less memory
• Had zero production crashes (compared to weekly incidents with the C++ version)
• Was completed in fewer lines of code

Web and Blockchain

Beyond traditional systems programming:

• Discord moved from Go to Rust for its message broker, reducing latency and resource usage
• Figma uses Rust for its multiplayer syncing engine, enabling real-time collaboration
• Many blockchain platforms (Solana, Polkadot, Near) are built with Rust for its combination of performance and safety

Where C++ Still Reigns Supreme

Despite Rust's momentum, C++ maintains significant advantages in several areas:

Mature Ecosystem and Tooling

C++ has a vast ecosystem of libraries, frameworks, and tools built over decades. While Rust's ecosystem is growing rapidly, it can't yet match the breadth of C++.

For specialized domains like game engines, scientific computing, or embedded systems, you'll often find more comprehensive C++ solutions available. This gap is closing, but it remains a practical consideration for many projects.

Legacy Codebase Integration

Organizations with large existing C++ codebases face significant costs in porting to Rust. The interoperability between C++ and Rust, while improving, still requires careful FFI design.

I recently led a project where we chose to keep our core in C++ while writing new microservices in Rust—a pragmatic approach that many teams are adopting.

Developer Familiarity and Hiring

The pool of experienced C++ developers vastly outnumbers Rust developers. While Rust is increasingly taught in computer science programs, finding senior Rust developers remains challenging.

The Learning Curve: Steeper But Shorter

Switching from C++ to Rust isn't without challenges. The most significant hurdle is adapting to Rust's ownership model:

• The borrow checker initially feels restrictive to C++ developers accustomed to manual memory management
• Lifetime annotations can be confusing at first
• Certain patterns (like self-referential structures) require rethinking your approach

However, the learning curve has a valuable property: it's steeper but shorter than C++. Once you internalize Rust's core concepts (typically after a few weeks of focused effort), you'll spend less time debugging and more time building.

I've found that developers who fully embrace Rust's approach rather than fighting against it become productive more quickly. As one team member put it: "The compiler is strict but fair—it's like having a meticulous code reviewer who catches issues before they become problems."

Practical Advice for C++ Developers Considering Rust

Based on my experience leading teams through this transition, here's my advice:

Start Small

Begin with isolated components or new microservices rather than rewriting existing systems. This approach lets you build confidence with Rust while limiting risk.

Good candidates for initial Rust projects include:

• Command-line tools
• Performance-critical services
• Data processing pipelines

Learn the Idioms, Not Just the Syntax

Rust may look superficially similar to C++ in some ways, but effective Rust code often uses different patterns. Invest time in understanding idiomatic Rust approaches to:

• Error handling with Result and Option
• Memory management with the ownership system
• Abstraction using traits rather than inheritance
• Functional programming patterns

Use the Ecosystem

Rust's package manager, Cargo, and the crates.io ecosystem make it easy to leverage existing code. Some particularly useful crates to explore:

• serde for serialization/deserialization
• tokio or async-std for async programming
• rayon for parallel computing
• clap for command-line argument parsing

Embrace the Compiler

The Rust compiler provides detailed, helpful error messages. Rather than seeing compiler errors as obstacles, view them as guidance. Over time, you'll find yourself thinking about code correctness in a new way.

The Future: Coexistence, Not Replacement

Despite the title of this post, I don't expect Rust to completely replace C++. Instead, I see a future where:

1. New systems programming projects increasingly choose Rust by default
2. C++ continues to evolve, adopting some Rust-inspired safety features
3. Large existing C++ codebases gradually incorporate Rust components

This multi-language approach is already happening at Microsoft, Google, and other large tech companies. They're using Rust for security-critical components while maintaining their C++ investment.

Conclusion: The Right Tool for Modern Systems Programming

Choosing between Rust and C++ isn't about following trends—it's about selecting the right tool for your specific requirements. For my team, Rust has proven to be the better choice for new systems programming work because:

• Memory safety saves debugging time and prevents security vulnerabilities
• Concurrency guarantees reduce subtle bugs in multi-threaded code
• Modern language features improve developer productivity
• The compiler serves as a partner rather than an obstacle

The programming language landscape continues to evolve, but Rust's unique combination of safety, performance, and expressiveness makes it the natural successor to C++ for many systems programming tasks.

What's your experience with Rust versus C++? Are you considering a migration, or have you already made the switch? I'd love to hear about your journey in the comments below.

---

This post draws from my experience transitioning multiple backend systems from C++ to Rust at a financial technology company. For more technical deep dives, check out my other posts on system architecture and performance optimization.