The Rust Programming Language as an alternative to C

C vs Rust: A Comparative Overview

Historically C has been used for systems level programming, embedded systems, and DSP software – all of which are important to the real-time communications that VOCAL specializes in. Created in the early 1970s, and proven over decades, C emphasizes simplicity, portability, and performance. It gives the programmer full control over memory and system resources with minimal abstraction. So it comes as no surprise that VOCAL’s code has been written almost exclusively in C, with assembly code optimizations. Until Rust came along, there were few, if any alternatives for many tasks. But now, Rust has shown to be a true alternative. C and Rust are both systems programming languages that provide low-level control over hardware and memory, but they differ significantly in philosophy, safety guarantees, and developer experience. Rust aims to combine performance with memory safety. It enforces strict compile-time checks to eliminate entire classes of bugs (e.g., null dereferencing, data races). It gives the programmer significant feedback on errors and how to correct them. It comes with tools to develop and run debug, release and unit test code, out of the box. When choosing whether to use Rust or C, these are some of the main areas worth considering.

Memory Safety and Management

• C:
  • Manual memory management using malloc() and free().
  • Vulnerable to memory leaks, buffer overflows, and use-after-free bugs.
  • Lacks built-in protections against data races in multithreaded code.
• Rust:
  • Ownership model with borrow checker ensures memory safety at compile time.
  • No garbage collector; memory is managed automatically via scope-based deallocation.
  • Prevents data races through enforced borrowing rules and thread-safe abstractions.

Performance

• C:
  • Often considered the baseline for system performance.
  • Optimized compilers and minimal runtime overhead.
  • A number of operations are compiler dependent or undefined by language definition, making porting more difficult.
• Rust:
  • Comparable or better performance than C in many benchmarks due to zero-cost abstractions.
  • Slightly longer compile times due to complex analysis during compilation.
  • Better at making operations defined and consistent, regardless of platform.

Tooling and Ecosystem

• C:
  • Mature ecosystem with widespread compiler and platform support.
  • Rich set of libraries, especially for embedded and OS-level development.
  • Debugging and error diagnostics can be primitive.
  • Makefiles or Ide usually used for code building and management.
• Rust:
  • Modern toolchain with built in tool (cargo) for dependency management and building, rather than make.
  • Strong documentation and growing ecosystem.
  • Excellent compiler diagnostics and error messages.

Concurrency and Multithreading

• C:
  • Low-level threading support, only by library extension (e.g., pthreads).
  • No built in synchronization primitives, such as mutexes or semaphores.
  • Developer must manually handle synchronization, often leading to race conditions.
• Rust:
  • High-level concurrency primitives in the standard library.
  • Compile-time guarantees eliminate data races.
  • Encourages safe multithreading by default, as part of the base language.

Use Cases and Adoption

• C:
  • Operating systems (e.g., Linux kernel), embedded systems, legacy applications.
  • Realtime processing, such as communications.
  • Suitable where maximum control and minimal abstraction are required.
  • Can be run on almost any system in existence.
• Rust:
  • Gaining traction in OS development (e.g., parts of Linux, Redox OS), browser engines, and safety-critical systems.
  • Often used in modern replacements for C libraries and applications.
  • May never be available on older platforms.

Learning Curve and Community

• C:
  • Easier to learn due to simplicity, but error-prone.
  • Massive global community and educational resources.
  • Easy to see how the language maps to the underlying system.
• Rust:
  • Steeper learning curve due to ownership and lifetimes.
  • Highly supportive community with a focus on newcomers.
  • A higher level of abstraction from underlying system, though not as much as many other high level languages.

Conclusion

C remains unparalleled in terms of legacy support and sheer control, but Rust presents a compelling alternative for new system-level projects with its safety guarantees, modern tooling, and strong performance. Which language is better suited depends on project requirements, legacy constraints, and developer expertise. In VOCAL’s core areas – Telecommunications, SIP/RTP/VoIP, Secure Communications, Modulations/Modems and Realtime and Embedded Systems – we expect the usage of Rust to expand. VOCAL is actively working with Rust on projects where the requirements demand, and as time goes on we expect more and more of our software to be available in Rust.

Please contact us if you have interest in Rust based real-time communication software. Call us now at +1-716-688-4675 or email us at sales@vocal.com and we’ll be sure to respond as soon as possible.