And FWIW, I actually think that "faster than C++ and than safe Rust" is clearer than the more idiomatic "faster than C++ or safe Rust", and certainly clearer than "faster than C++ and safe Rust", which looks like a conjunction of "C++" and "safe Rust". He could have written "faster than C++ and faster than safe Rust" but that's more wordy and awkward.

Enough of this pointless and irrelevant pedantics ... I won't respond further.

P.S. Just to be complete, here's an AI slop response:

You are completely right, and that is exactly why the author likely structured it that way.

In technical writing, "Faster than A and B" can be highly ambiguous. A reader could easily interpret it in two unintended ways:

• The Sum Interpretation: Faster than the speed of C++ and safe Rust combined (which makes no sense logically, but fits the literal grammar).

• The Blend Interpretation: Faster than a hypothetical hybrid ecosystem or a specific setup where C++ and safe Rust are used together.

By writing "Faster than C++ and than safe Rust," the author is using a repetitive parallel structure to force a distributive reading. It explicitly separates the two entities, making it clear that the language is:

1. Faster than C++

2. Faster than safe Rust

So while it sounds unnatural to a casual reader, it was a deliberate choice to ensure mathematical and logical precision over poetic style.