blog posts

Two programming languages stand out as the dominant players in embedded systems, high-performance computing, and Internet of Things (IoT) development: C++ and Rust. Both are low-level and powerful and offer developers fine-grained control over memory, performance, and hardware interfaces. While C++ has been around for decades and established itself as the de facto standard in system programming, Rust is the modern contender, quickly gaining popularity for its safety features and elegant design.

This article will explore the significant differences between Rust and C++, especially regarding systems programming. We’ll cover aspects such as performance, safety, extensibility, ecosystem, developer experience, and cost considerations to help you determine which language is best suited for your project.

Introduction to C++

C++, developed by Bjarne Stroustrup in the early 1980s, is a general-purpose programming language that builds upon the C programming language by adding object-oriented features, memory abstraction, and a standard library. Its design philosophy emphasizes performance and flexibility, allowing developers to write efficient and complex applications for various platforms.

C++ has been the backbone of major software systems, operating systems, game engines (like Unreal Engine), and high-performance applications. Its manual memory management and close-to-hardware control are ideal for embedded systems and resource-constrained devices — a key area in IoT development.

Key Features:

• Manual memory control using pointers and dynamic allocation

• Object-oriented programming (classes, inheritance, polymorphism)

• Template programming and metaprogramming

• Huge ecosystem with decades of community contributions

Introduction to Rust

On the other hand, Rust is a relatively new system programming language designed by Mozilla and officially released in 2010. It aims to solve some of the long-standing issues in C and C++, especially those related to memory safety and concurrency bugs. Rust provides the same low-level control as C++, but with a stronger emphasis on safety and predictability.

Rust introduces a unique ownership model, borrow checker, and lifetimes to eliminate entire classes of bugs, particularly null pointer dereferencing, dangling references, and data races, all at compile time.

Key Features:

• Zero-cost abstractions

• Memory safety without garbage collection

• Strong compile-time checks

• Built-in concurrency support

• Pattern matching and functional programming support

1. Performance

Bust and C++ are compiled, low-level languages that can produce highly optimized binaries. Regarding raw performance, C++ and Rust are usually comparable, with C++ sometimes edging out due to mature compilers and well-known optimization strategies.

However, Rust shines in safe performance. Its compiler enforces memory and thread safety so developers can write efficient concurrent code without fear of segmentation faults or data races. This is crucial in IoT and real-time systems where bugs can lead to catastrophic failures.

Verdict:

• C++: Slightly better for peak performance in expert hands.

• Rust: Offers safer performance, reducing runtime failures.

2. Memory Management

C++ relies on manual memory management, which gives developers complete control but also introduces the risk of memory leaks, buffer overflows, and undefined behavior. While tools like smart pointers (std::shared_ptr, std::unique_ptr) and RAII (Resource Acquisition Is Initialization) help, the programmer’s responsibility remains.

Rust introduces a compiler-enforced memory model based on ownership and borrowing. It statically guarantees memory safety without garbage collection. Memory is automatically reclaimed once it goes out of scope, significantly reducing the chances of leaks and undefined behavior.

Verdict:

• Rust wins with a modern, safe memory management model.

3. Learning Curve and Developer Experience

C++ has a steep learning curve due to its complex syntax, undefined behaviors, and manual memory handling. Over time, it has accumulated features that can confuse newcomers, such as multiple inheritance, template metaprogramming, preprocessor directives, and more.

Rust is more beginner-friendly in terms of consistent syntax and modern tooling. The compiler provides helpful error messages, and the language avoids legacy behaviors. However, Rust’s ownership model can be a hurdle for new developers unfamiliar with memory management concepts.

Verdict:

• Rust offers a more modern and guided developer experience.

• C++ is harder to master but offers unparalleled flexibility for experts.

4. Ecosystem and Libraries

C++ boasts a vast ecosystem built over 40 years, with mature libraries and frameworks available for almost every domain — GUI (Qt, wxWidgets), networking (Boost.Asio), math and science (Eigen, OpenCV), and more. For game development and desktop applications, it’s still the dominant choice.

Rust’s ecosystem is growing rapidly, but is not yet as mature. However, it has excellent package management through Cargo and a vibrant open-source community. Popular crates (Rust libraries) such as tokio, actix, and serde cover many everyday needs.

Verdict:

• C++ wins in terms of sheer volume and maturity of libraries.

• Rust is catching up with modern, community-driven tooling.

5. Concurrency and Multithreading

Rust was designed with concurrency in mind. Its ownership and type system prevent data races, making it one of the safest languages for concurrent programming. Developers don’t need traditional locks or mutexes for simple concurrency models.

C++ supports multithreading, but it’s more error-prone. Concurrency bugs, such as race conditions, are difficult to detect and debug. Although the language has improved with the introduction of C++11 and later standards, safety is not guaranteed.

Verdict:

• Rust provides a safer and more modern concurrency model.

6. Extensibility and Interoperability

C++ is outstandingly interoperable with C and is widely supported by embedded system SDKs and toolchains. This makes it ideal for working with legacy code or integrating with hardware-level APIs.

Rust can also interoperate with C using FFI (Foreign Function Interface), but it’s not as seamless—many embedded platforms and vendors don’t offer direct Rust support or SDKs.

Verdict:

• C++ remains better for extensibility and hardware integration, for now.

7. Cost of Development and Talent Availability

Because C++ is widely adopted, finding experienced developers is easier and less expensive. In contrast, Rust developers are in higher demand but are fewer in number. As a result, Rust development can be more costly and slower if your team is inexperienced.

That said, Rust’s productivity gains and safety features may reduce long-term costs by avoiding bugs, crashes, and security issues.

Verdict:

• C++ is more cost-effective in terms of hiring and time-to-market.

• Rust offers better ROI for long-term maintenance and safety.

Use Cases in IoT Development

Final Thoughts: Which One Should You Choose?

There is no absolute winner in the Rust vs. C++ debate. The choice between them depends on your project’s requirements, development resources, and long-term goals.

• Choose C++ if:

  • You need broad library support and existing integrations

  • Your project depends on legacy code or specific hardware SDKs

  • You have an experienced C++ team

• Choose Rust if:

  • You want to prioritize safety and concurrency

  • You’re building a greenfield project with long-term maintainability

  • You can invest in training, or you already have Rust expertise

Need Help Choosing the Right Tech Stack?

If you’re still unsure which language best suits your IoT or system-level project, consult with our experienced Rust and C++ engineers. We’ll help you analyze your product requirements, evaluate potential risks, and choose the right tools for maximum performance and reliability.

Let us help you build future-proof, efficient, and secure solutions — whether in Rust, C++, or both.