> At this point the cognitive load required to read and understand Rust implementations of "typical" practical problems is rather higher than it is for C++. I

> At this point the cognitive load required to read and understand Rust implementations of "typical" practical problems is rather higher than it is for C++. I code in Rust and C++ every day, and am mostly equally experienced in both (maybe more Rust now, but this wasn't always the case). I disagree. Rust has some ergonomics issues that C++ does not, but the reverse is true too. Looking at rust from C++ you'll only see one and not the other, because you're used to the other. (And as burntsushi said your characterization of the thread is inaccurate, people are suggesting things that are best for different use cases) Rust hasn't really tried "hard" to make error handling simple. We have what we had during 1.0, and then we have the ? operator, which always existed as try!().