Yes, I agree with your original analysis completely - well thought out languages with a richer basic type zoo are generally much more pleasant to deal with than

Yes, I agree with your original analysis completely - well thought out languages with a richer basic type zoo are generally much more pleasant to deal with than C++. My answer was to the specific claim that an iterator using the "next" formulation would be hard to use in C++ - it's not, and it makes several pieces of code much nicer than using the default iteration scheme of raw index or pointer-hopping. So, the intent was not to make a statement "we can do that in C++, Rust has no merit in this regard" but rather, "you should not shy away from this nice pattern if you are forced to use C++ in your daily work". This intent was not that obvious in the message's context, though.