I... what? Rust is hardly targeting "small, easy language for ignorant developers," and putting it in that camp because it has nice error messages is unreasonab

I... what? Rust is hardly targeting "small, easy language for ignorant developers," and putting it in that camp because it has nice error messages is unreasonable. I'm even more perplexed by "Rust currently provides no benefit over (modern) C++." * Rust's "pthreads and mutexes" wrappers prevent data races at compile time, and there's Rayon to compete with things like OpenMP. * Rust's moves are destructive, guaranteed nothrow, and also checked at compile time. * Rust's borrow checker is light years ahead of C++'s. * Rust's type system lends itself to far simpler generic code, with trait-based generics and sum types instead of concepts and std::variant. * Rust's iterators are much better than C++'s, to the point that Ranges is one of the most highly-anticipated additions to C++. All of these are things C++ is actively trying to improve, so clearly at least the committee agrees they're worthwhile features.