Rust is lots of things, not the least of which includes static guarantees of safety, including safe concurrent memory usage. If you asked them, I'd bet the C++

Rust is lots of things, not the least of which includes static guarantees of safety, including safe concurrent memory usage. If you asked them, I'd bet the C++ design team would admit lots of faults in the language design. Some of those are due to a need to preserve compatibility with C and older C++ code. Some are just lessons learned as the language grows and finds new uses. Others are because computers used for software development and targets on which binaries would execute were very different from computers today. I think there's a case for looking back and asking "if we were to invent a language like C or C++ today, knowing what we know now, what would it look like?" I don't think that Rust's origin quite spawned from that, but it certainly looks like it fits that bill. This particular feature is yet-another-static-analysis-addendum-to-C++. It's a great complement to TSan. But IMO if there were ever something in this vein that could be considered "a Rust killer" it would have been TSan. No one likes going back and annotating their code. People can barely be bothered to make a new build target with "-fsanitize=thread". /signed: rust evangelism strike force