> It's all too easy to throw away error codes in C/C++. Warning is produced by nearly every good compiler. They aren't forced because sometimes I don't really

> It's all too easy to throw away error codes in C/C++. Warning is produced by nearly every good compiler. They aren't forced because sometimes I don't really want to check for return values. > In C/C++ it's easy to build a switch for an enum, and then later when a new member is added to the enum and you forget to update all your switches. why would you update all other enum values in accordance to addition to a new one? I understand you could possibly be skipping one switch case because you just added it in enum definition but didn't update switch case, but why would you update rest? Is this a forced requirement in Rust? This is bad if it is. > Support for multiple return values (through tuples) means being able to avoid the nightmare of output pointer arguments to functions. std::tuple? > No NULL pointers. but what if you need them? Lets say a type safe, non-zero nullptr? I understand some people want to bring up whole NULL is bad mistake argument but remember some of us work with maintaining large code where such changes are non-trivial. > Unit testing built into the canonical tooling. Documentation testing built into the canonical tooling. This is good argument :) > The `Option` type, which lets you return "nothing". In C/C++ you'd have to return a bool, and again use a nightmarish output pointer argument. std::optional? Or many other implementations of optional type? I've been using them since ages(before rust was even born) and writing them is no NP problem. Don't credit rust as if it brought the `Option` type. > `OsRng` in the rand crate (go ahead, try to write a function that safely reads urandom in C). Is this intended to be sarcasm? try <random> header and see if it fulfills your requirement, otherwise there are tons of libraries. But wait, what? This is another already solved problem unless I'm missing something. > No undefined behavior. Lol do you even unsafe bro? > C++ would require a whole set of classes, and require instantiating a new class every time I want to add a new cryptographic type. Rust only requires 3 lines per type. Depends on your cpp skills and judging by this post, they're certainly less than expected from a beginner. I hope you learn about certain languages (even the ones you are defending) before writing things on internet, since 90% of what you wrote won't even come near acceptable so I suggest doing your research properly.