Agreed. I think the freetype alternative that made the front page of HN the other day puts the performance argument pretty well to bed. The rest seems to be th

Agreed. I think the freetype alternative that made the front page of HN the other day puts the performance argument pretty well to bed. The rest seems to be things that the author doesn't agree with(exceptions) or "You're just not using it right"(to paraphrase the last bullet point at the end). So far I've been using Rust in every side-project where I'd use C++ and you know what I don't miss? Crashes/stack corruptions/etc because of an off-by-one error. 90% of the C++ code you write is not the inner loop, that said if I want to use modern C++ stuff I'd still be hitting the heap for std::vector. Rust's iterators are an awesome way to keep everything stack based in a nice ergonomic way. Most recently I wrote a packet library over an AX.25 radio link in Rust. With about 1:1 code:unit test radio most stuff just worked. I've almost never seen that in a production C++ library. C++ isn't going away but for me Rust is here to stay.