DEV Community

Cover image for Speed & Performance: A Practical Comparison of C, C++, Rust, JavaScript, and Python
Farhad Rahimi Klie
Farhad Rahimi Klie

Posted on

Speed & Performance: A Practical Comparison of C, C++, Rust, JavaScript, and Python

Performance is one of the most misunderstood topics in software engineering.
Many developers compare programming languages using micro-benchmarks or slogans like “X is faster than Y”, without understanding why those differences exist and when they actually matter.

This article provides a practical, engineering-level comparison of the runtime speed and performance characteristics of five widely used programming languages:

  • C
  • C++
  • Rust
  • JavaScript
  • Python

We will focus on execution speed, memory control, runtime overhead, and real-world performance behavior, not hype.


1. What “Performance” Actually Means

Before comparing languages, we need to define performance correctly.

Performance is not just “how fast a loop runs”.

It includes:

  • Execution speed (CPU efficiency)
  • Memory usage and allocation behavior
  • Startup time
  • Predictability and latency
  • Concurrency and parallelism efficiency
  • Runtime overhead (GC, interpreter, VM)

Different languages optimize for different trade-offs.


2. C — Maximum Control, Maximum Speed

Why C Is Fast

C is fast because nothing stands between your code and the hardware.

Key characteristics:

  • Compiled directly to native machine code
  • No runtime, no garbage collector
  • Manual memory management
  • Minimal abstraction overhead

The compiler generates instructions that map very closely to the CPU architecture.

Performance Profile

  • Execution speed: Extremely high
  • Memory efficiency: Excellent (if used correctly)
  • Latency: Very predictable
  • Startup time: Near-instant

Downsides

  • No safety guarantees
  • Easy to introduce memory bugs
  • Developer productivity cost

Where C Dominates

  • Operating systems (Linux kernel)
  • Embedded systems
  • Device drivers
  • High-frequency trading infrastructure
  • Game engines (core systems)

Bottom line:
C is still the baseline for raw performance.


3. C++ — High Performance with Abstractions

Why C++ Is Fast

C++ builds on C but adds:

  • Zero-cost abstractions
  • Templates (compile-time computation)
  • RAII for deterministic resource management

When used correctly, C++ abstractions compile away with no runtime cost.

Performance Profile

  • Execution speed: Equal to or slightly slower than C
  • Memory control: Very high
  • Inlining & optimization: Excellent
  • Startup time: Very fast

Downsides

  • Complex language
  • Easy to write slow code unintentionally
  • Long compile times

Where C++ Shines

  • Game engines (Unreal Engine)
  • High-performance graphics
  • Real-time systems
  • Large-scale financial systems
  • Browsers (Chrome, Firefox engines)

Bottom line:
C++ offers near-C performance with far more expressive power.


4. Rust — Performance with Safety

Why Rust Is Fast

Rust is compiled to native code like C and C++, but introduces:

  • Ownership and borrowing
  • Compile-time memory safety
  • No garbage collector

Rust enforces safety at compile time, not runtime.

Performance Profile

  • Execution speed: Comparable to C++
  • Memory efficiency: Excellent
  • Latency: Predictable
  • Runtime overhead: Minimal

Downsides

  • Steep learning curve
  • Longer development time initially
  • Compile times can be slow

Where Rust Excels

  • Systems programming
  • Network services
  • Cryptography
  • WebAssembly
  • Performance-critical backend services

Bottom line:
Rust delivers C++-level performance with far fewer runtime bugs.


5. JavaScript — Fast for What It Is

Why JavaScript Is Faster Than You Expect

JavaScript is not interpreted anymore.

Modern JS engines (V8, SpiderMonkey) use:

  • Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation
  • Speculative optimization
  • Inline caching
  • Hidden classes

This allows hot code paths to approach native speed.

Performance Profile

  • Execution speed: Medium
  • Startup time: Fast
  • Memory usage: Higher than native languages
  • Latency: Less predictable due to GC

Downsides

  • Garbage collection pauses
  • Dynamic typing overhead
  • Slower numerical computation

Where JavaScript Wins

  • Web applications
  • Real-time UIs
  • Server-side APIs (Node.js)
  • I/O-bound systems

Bottom line:
JavaScript is fast enough for most web workloads, but not a systems language.


6. Python — Slow by Design, Powerful by Ecosystem

Why Python Is Slow

Python prioritizes:

  • Readability
  • Simplicity
  • Developer productivity

Performance costs come from:

  • Interpretation (CPython)
  • Dynamic typing
  • Reference counting
  • Global Interpreter Lock (GIL)

Performance Profile

  • Execution speed: Slow
  • Startup time: Moderate
  • Memory usage: High
  • Concurrency: Limited (CPU-bound)

Downsides

  • Poor CPU-bound performance
  • Scaling issues without extensions

Where Python Still Wins

  • Data science
  • Machine learning
  • Automation
  • Scripting
  • Prototyping

Most high-performance Python systems rely on C/C++ extensions (NumPy, TensorFlow).

Bottom line:
Python trades speed for maximum productivity and ecosystem power.


7. Relative Performance Ranking (CPU-Bound)

Approximate execution speed (fastest → slowest):

  1. C
  2. C++
  3. Rust
  4. JavaScript
  5. Python

This ranking applies mainly to CPU-intensive workloads.


8. Performance Is About Context, Not Ego

Choosing a language based purely on speed is a mistake.

Ask instead:

  • Is this CPU-bound or I/O-bound?
  • Do I need predictable latency?
  • How critical is memory safety?
  • What is the cost of developer time?

In many real systems:

  • Architecture beats language
  • Algorithms beat syntax
  • I/O dominates CPU

9. Final Thoughts

  • Use C or C++ when you need absolute control and performance
  • Use Rust when you want safety without sacrificing speed
  • Use JavaScript for scalable, event-driven applications
  • Use Python when productivity matters more than raw speed

A great engineer chooses tools based on constraints, not trends.

Top comments (0)