You could replace Rust for almost any language in that assertion and it would be true, so it would be good to clarify that Rust does not trail of behind C much, and it's even faster than C on 4 out of 14 tests.

I'm kind of sad that's your takeaway :(

Literally the second paragraph :

“ Overall no correlation between performance and safety could be found, nor whether safe or unsafe internal abstractions are used.”

The comparison involved different and not completely overlapping sort algorithms. If you want to say this you have to first prove it's not just the algorithm.

"As seen in the benchmarks, the current Rust standard library unstable sort implementation outperforms the C++ standard library counterparts. "

I don't think the article made that conclusion? I see this in there:

> As seen in the benchmarks, the current Rust standard library unstable sort implementation outperforms the C++ standard library counterparts

And I can't find any generalizations like that from the author, though I may have missed it.

and C++ would be easiest?