> That being said, Rust is already so obscure that it can easily replace C++ An obtuse syntax is a big downside of C++. Implying that a steep learning curve an

> That being said, Rust is already so obscure that it can easily replace C++ An obtuse syntax is a big downside of C++. Implying that a steep learning curve and the ability to 'show off' helps keep the language where it is grossly misrepresents the vast majority of C++ programmers. Those traits were born out of necessity. In C++98 you simply had to be 'clever' to keep up with modern languages because the language was stagnant for a decade. If the committee can't add things, you do something clever and do it yourself. C++ was stagnant for the dot-com era, Web 2.0, and the rise of mobile apps, and today it thrives. There's more to that than being entrenched in legacy code bases. Rust emulating C++s difficulty as a way to cultivate an elitist community, if that's what you're implying, will not work now when C++ is moving in the opposite direction.