Decades of computer development have transformed these machines from simple number-crunching devices to the backbone of data exchange and communication. My research proposal aims to analyze the performance improvements brought about by years of computer research, focusing on a comparison between two widely used Low-Level Programming Languages: RUST and C++.
C++, emerging as an evolution of the popular C language in the 80s, stands in contrast to RUST, released in 2013. The differences in their approaches to successful code execution are striking. RUST emphasizes Code Safety, Security, and Optimization. C++ grants users complete freedom, albeit with potential risks. Despite the advancements offered by RUST, developers have been slow to transition from C++, benefiting from its decades-long head start.
The research intends to delve into the logic behind the execution of the same piece of code by each programming language, analyzing their respective Assembly Files—the set of commands processed by a CPU. By maintaining a consistent hardware benchmark, this study has the potential to reveal the performance gains resulting from decades of programming language development. Newer languages, such as RUST, utilize fewer CPU resources, offering enhanced security and flexibility. Extrapolating these findings to high-performance computing, transitioning to RUST could potentially save over 10.25 terawatt hours of electricity without any hardware changes, equivalent to the electricity usage of 119 countries.
This research not only makes a compelling case for developers to adopt RUST but also emphasizes the potential environmental impact and resource efficiency of transitioning to newer, more optimized programming languages like RUST.