"The C++ community flames the Rust community" right in this thread. TFA didn't say there was no merit to the "safe C++ subset" [1], just that it's not here yet,

"The C++ community flames the Rust community" right in this thread. TFA didn't say there was no merit to the "safe C++ subset" [1], just that it's not here yet, it's not going to be as safe as Rust, and that it's often mentioned as if it's here and as safe as Rust, that's why TFA called it vaporware. This thread is not refuting this claim but explicitly or implicitly blames TFA and "the Rust community" for misrepresenting C++ as dead, useless and not worthy of improvement. Of course C++ is far from dead, enjoyed by some, and used by many more; TFA did not claim otherwise. Of course improving C++ helps those using it; TFA did not claim otherwise. All it claimed was that the current and potential future state of Rust relatively to C++ was misrepresented by people at the C++ side; I think you're more supporting than refuting this claim. [1] I personally, unlike TFA and some commenters here, must say that I'm not thrilled about anything having to do with unique_ptr (which as TFA demonstrated is not guaranteed to be unique at all, but is as unique as its user made it) and other such; certainly if I have to rewrite an old code base to use new smart pointers, the change will involve every corner of that code base, and I think I'd rather rewrite it in another actually safe language if safety is what worries me. But that's just me; and BTW I haven't personally looked deeply enough into Rust to advocate for it, either.