Article by Ayman Alheraki on January 11 2026 10:36 AM
C++ and Rust are both powerful languages primarily used in system and infrastructure development. However, there are certain features and capabilities that C++ possesses, which cannot yet be fully replicated in Rust with the same efficiency or flexibility.
In this article, I am in no way diminishing the value of the Rust language. However, C++ is an older, more stable, and more reliable language for certain types of projects, as I will mention in the following points. I believe that Rust is still under continuous development and has great potential if it continues to receive the current level of support and maintains its current development trajectory.
Below is a detailed exploration of these differences:
C++ has been in use for decades and enjoys robust support for legacy systems and libraries built with C and C++.
Most compilers and tools rely heavily on C++ code, making transitions to Rust more challenging.
Rust, being relatively new, struggles to match C++ in compatibility with legacy code.
C++ supports various programming paradigms, including:
Object-Oriented Programming (OOP).
Procedural Programming.
Functional Programming.
Template-Based Metaprogramming.
While Rust excels in functional programming and its ownership model, it lacks comprehensive support for traditional object-oriented programming as flexibly as C++.
C++ templates are more powerful and flexible compared to Rust’s generics.
Templates in C++ allow features such as:
Metaprogramming.
Dynamic behavior at compile-time.
Rust’s generics are safer but lack the level of compile-time programming provided by C++ templates.
Rust enforces memory safety through its ownership model, which is highly effective but restrictive in some scenarios.
C++ offers complete manual control over memory allocation and management using pointers, enabling techniques like:
Placement new.
Memory pools.
Custom allocators.
Rust’s strict safety model makes such low-level control either challenging or impossible.
C++ has features like constexpr and template metaprogramming, enabling complex operations at compile-time for faster runtime performance.
Rust lacks tools or mechanisms to perform similarly intensive operations during compile-time.
As the natural extension of C, C++ integrates effortlessly with C code.
Rust can interface with C using FFI (Foreign Function Interface), but it’s more complex and less efficient than C++’s natural compatibility.
C++ has a wide range of mature libraries and frameworks like Qt, MFC, and wxWidgets for developing graphical user interfaces (GUIs).
Rust lacks GUI libraries with the same maturity and breadth of functionality as those available for C++.
Many compilers and large-scale software tools (e.g., Clang, GCC, LLVM) are developed using C++ due to its strong support for low-level constructs.
Rust contributes to low-level tools like LLVM but still relies on C++ for many foundational components.
C++ supports exceptions as a native mechanism for error handling.
Rust uses a safer but more verbose system with Result/Option types, which can be less flexible in certain scenarios.
C++ is widely used in developing operating systems and large-scale infrastructure like Windows and macOS.
While Rust is gaining traction in specific areas (e.g., parts of Linux through the Rust for Linux project), it hasn’t yet achieved the same level of trust for critical systems.
C++ allows seamless integration with assembly code through inline assembly, making it ideal for low-level system development.
Rust supports assembly integration through unsafe blocks, but it’s more complex and includes restrictions to ensure safety.
Rust offers powerful safety features and is an excellent choice for modern applications. However, C++ remains the most flexible and powerful language in domains requiring complete system control. For large-scale projects, legacy systems, or scenarios demanding maximum hardware utilization, C++ currently stands out as the superior option.