I don't know what it is that Rust demonstrates given that few large scale projects have chosen it, but I've seen nothing to indicate that it doesn't suffer from the same performance issues as C++ compared to Java. 

    Of course, in principle it's always possible to match and perhaps even exceed Java's performance in a low-level language, but in practice it becomes ever more difficult as the program grows (and the cost remains with maintenance forever).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_performance

> Some of those Rust advantages are exactly the same things that have been touted as major advantages for Java over C++, like escape analysis and lifetimes.

These aren't the biggest advantages. I would say that the biggest ones are aggressive speculative optimisations that allow inlining of virtual calls (by default, up to a depth of 15 calls) and the ability to freely move pointers, which allows alternatives to free-list-based memory management. Low-level languages can't afford pervasive speculative optimisation (as they're focused on the worst case) and can't allow most of their pointers to be moved (because they often share them directly with the hardware and/or device drivers).

> and the wiki page on Java performance [0] is repeating what I understood.

That may be because the information on that page seems to be up to date to 2011-2. Java is now on version 26, BTW.

Slightly off topic -- java-related wiki pages are notoriously bad and possibly biased for some reason. They are laughably outdated and have a bunch of non-objective sentences that paint a much worse picture of the language than deserved.

I have even tried removing/rewriting some of the questionable sentences but my edits weren't accepted.