The specific exercise I have in mind is a lockless thread queue. < 20 lines in C .. ~200 lines in Rust.
I write code much faster in Rust than in C++. Part of it is thanks to the type system – fewer opportunities for dev errors means that I can produce code that is more concise, spends less time handling runtime errors because I can have static guarantees that they have already been handled somewhere, etc. Part of it is #[derive(...)], great documentation, Cargo and other QoL components of Rust.
Why is this your exercise you have in mind though? This is such a bad argument. Like, yes, if you work at doublylinkedlist.com where your entire job is writing a new linked list implementation every day of the week, Rust might be a bad choice. But that's not what any kind of commercial enterprise actually looks like. If I saw you writing a lockless thread queue at work, I'd tell you to stop wasting time.
That was an example I could point to where the code size difference between Rust and C or C++ is roughly 10x. I mentioned it to corroborate the claim that sometimes writing Rust is very verbose, on the order of ten times more.
My point was not that average commercial codebases are largely dominated my these types of structures. My point was that my experience with Rust has been that the development slowdown is much more than 5%, as the OP suggested.
>> If I saw you writing a lockless thread queue at work, I'd tell you to stop wasting time.
And that's one reason we don't work together ;)
Also, things like queues tend to be implemented in either the stdlib or a very popular library. So they are very well tested and likely to be widely reviewed.
Other projects will really get into domains where you have to work hard to satisfy the borrow checker and it can slow you down a lot. In a real application you won't be writing lockless thread queues for a big % of the time. But then for a real application the compile times will start to weigh on you more. (Though, C++ does not always compile fast either unless some care is taken to be sure it does)
Those take time to run too and should absolutely be added to the compile time metrics when comparing against "cargo build".
I don't run a linter because I hate them, and my metaprogramming passes do a bit of extra static checking clang doesn't. I occationally run extra static tools (valgrind et. al) but they're painfully slow and very rarely catch anything.
Do they have an equivalent API? Rust does have a hard time explaining very, very low level stuff that you'd have to do unsafe and various magicks. But once you get the unsafe details right, the consumer API for them tends to be extremely rigid and fool proof.
A little odd for a supposed system langauge