Linux

But functioning C code is as good as functioning Rust code right?

Practically yes, but also no. The C pointer aliasing rules limit the optimizations the compiler can apply, since any int * might point to any int in scope. It’s even worse than that in the Linux kernel: since it has to be compiled with -fno-strict-aliasing, the compiler has to assume that any pointer can alias any variable in scope.

In contrast, Rust simply disallows aliases to mutable variables and the compiler prevents them in safe code (you can write them in unsafe code but it’s instantly undefined behavior, which is why unsafe Rust is harder to write than C). Every variable that can change has one and only one name. This can sometimes allow the Rust compiler to optimize in ways that wouldn’t be possible in C.

But in practice the impact of this is pretty close to nil as long as you write smallish functions.

From what I get, Rust proposes to make low-level coding easier by forcing programmers into a certain workflow.

Yes and no. It forces programmers to a certain workflow like using a borrow checker to manage memory, but it actually makes programmer's lives easier, because it prevents bugs from runtime. The compiler will throw a fit, over your buggy code if you try to compile, unlike C.

The funny part is that rust is actually a high level language that can do low level stuff.

But functioning C code is as good as functioning Rust code right?

Yes. I prefer C because it is easier to learn than rust, and feel like rust is more comparable to C++. I also feel like llm plus rust is a good combo, these days.