I’m not sure if this is a critique or a question. If former, then I don’t understand why would that matter. Even at 4 times the length of the code, Rust is safer, more robust and better optimized. So why would the length matter?
Of course, correctness trumps almost everything in programming. Rust seems like a really nicely balanced programming language that can replace C++ and C and provide additional protection against some kinds of common errors made by programmers. So it’s definitely on my list of languages to try next for a project.
Even so, 1300 vs 1000, or 1.3x is not really in the "so much more as to be more difficult to read" category.
In fact it can be in the "better worded and easier to read category" (e.g. a monolithic stream of code without functions and comments vs one with).
Rust might end up being just right, not too concise, like Haskell or APL, and not too verbose, like Java or Ada; it could be a Goldilocks language.
It's close to insignificant to comparing two languages. Especially when they boil down to things like:
let ptr = unsafe {
libc::mmap(
ptr::null_mut(),
len,
libc::PROT_READ | libc::PROT_WRITE,
libc::MAP_SHARED,
file.as_raw_fd(),
0,
) as *mut u8
};
The C version also crams every line together, the Rust version couples related statements but leave newlines between others (not sure if loc counts those too).
C++ implementations obey the zero-overhead principle: What you don’t use, you don’t pay for [Stroustrup, 1994]. And further: What you do use, you couldn’t hand code any better. – Stroustrup