# Comparison of Rust to Julia for scientific computing?

**URL:** https://discourse.julialang.org/t/comparison-of-rust-to-julia-for-scientific-computing/78508
**Category:** Offtopic
**Tags:** question, rust
**Created:** [March 26, 2022, 11:47am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/comparison-of-rust-to-julia-for-scientific-computing/78508 "2022-03-26T11:47:18Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 18

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Palli](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/palli/32/3380_2.png) [@Palli](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Palli)
#### Post date: [March 26, 2022, 4:43pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/comparison-of-rust-to-julia-for-scientific-computing/78508/18 "2022-03-26T16:43:05Z")

</div>

I believe Fortran has at least good array handling, and while I don’t really know it, I found: [Generic programming in Fortran Wiki](https://fortranwiki.org/fortran/show/Generic+programming)

So I’m not sure Rust even has the generic programming advantage, that Oscar mentioned. Maybe in practice it’s not done much in Fortran, people slow to adopt modern Fortran standards (and Fortran 2003, not even brand-new, since then Fortran 2008 and 2018)?

I’m a big believer in languages working together, and it seems Julia can reuse everything Rust comes up with (i.e. its easy to call), like it’s easy to call C or Fortran, so all libraries in those languages can be reused. Of course the whole will not be fully safe as if all of it had been done in Rust.

I can my own idea while reading and answering this thread (and posted a link to some bounds-checking research there, that I’ve not yet read…):

> [@Probabilistic bounds-checking idea, to retain more (probabilistic) safety, and retaining most of the speed](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/probabilistic-bounds-checking-idea-to-retain-more-probabilistic-safety-and-retaining-most-of-the-speed/78515):
>
> First, I like Julia’s approach to bounds checking, it seems ideal, better than most, in fact all, languages I know of. My own idea: @inbounds could be relaxed to check say every 4th loop iteration (configurable by the user?), to lessen overhead. Your code is still less safe, but you retain at least some safety. Seemingly the code would expand, but you may have expansion anyway, it’s common for compilers to unroll loops. Background: Julia is mostly not made to be a safe language, while it is by…

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/comparison-of-rust-to-julia-for-scientific-computing/78508)._