I'm new to this forum, and am creating a tutorial for Rust. (The tutorial is not complete)
This tutorial is not exactly aimed at anyone, but just to consolidate my knowledge in Rust. (And partly, to kill time when I am bored.)
You can visit it here!
Can people give feedback for me? It will help a lot! Thanks!
PS: I'm not new to Rust, and created some small projects for fun.
I have eyed through the tutorial and it's quite good, overall. It's not much to read, but it's also not complete (as you said), I didn't check for any spelling or grammar mistakes, since I don't trust that I'm right, myself, so this will comment more on the content.
I wouldn't rely too much on those benchmarks in the introduction. The first one seems to be from 2013, which is very old and outdated in Rust time. It's still using ~[T] instead of Vec<T>, and do for iteration! I may also be bad at searching, but I can't find any numbers there to back "it is more than 15% times slower than C++ code complied using clang++". Did you link to the correct benchmark, and did you mean "15%" instead of "15% times"?
The second one is an other story. I don't know if it's still not up to date with the optimized benchmarks. In any case, those are usually brutally optimized and not necessarily representative for day-to-day code, regarding file size and such. Benchmarks in general are usually only representative for their particular problems and algorithms, but that's an other discussion.
The rest seems alright and I didn't notice any obvious mistakes. I I did, however, notice that you seem to be a bit skeptical to some of the safety/diagnostics features in Rust. How come (I'm curious)? Is it necessary to bake it into the tutorial? It may come off as dissuasion, which is fine if that's your intent.
There is also the mild tone of text editor elitism, which may come of as accusing the reader of using a big bad IDE. It's good to show that a simple text editor is enough, but I see no reason to make the readers feel bad about their preferences. I'm particularly thinking of "Unless you're that type of person.", which makes it sound like some unwanted character flaw. I think that removing the parenthesis part would make it more neutral and less personal.
Other than the points above, I think you explained things quite well and in a not too complicated way, as far as I can tell. I like the project based approach and how you show some occasional easy mistakes that people may bump into when playing around. I think it's good to show things that may be unexpected for beginners, and explain why they are like that.
Keep it going 
Thank you for your response! I will, try to slightly edit it. Also, I guessed that some ideas were not conveyed properly, since my native tongue isn't English. 
Continue to check it out after I changed it and send your feedback! Thanks again!