In my experience, even modern C++ code and cutting-edge static analyzers still have a lot more holes than Rust when it comes to borrowing and lifetimes. Unsoun

In my experience, even modern C++ code and cutting-edge static analyzers still have a lot more holes than Rust when it comes to borrowing and lifetimes. Unsound code like this (which in Rust is the most basic form of lifetime error) still manages to slip past the CppCoreGuidelines static analyzer that Microsoft has been developing for years, which includes "lifetime checking": #include <iostream> #include <string> #include <string_view> int main() { std::string s = "Hellooooooooooooooo "; std::string_view sv = s + "World\n"; std::cout << sv; } C++ types simply don't contain the information needed to do Rust-style lifetime analysis. C++ static analyzers have to hard-code this knowledge themselves about every library type (will never be complete for every library in existence), use heuristics (will always have some false positives and false negatives), or rely on whole-program analysis of function bodies rather than signatures/types (runs into incomputability problems, and validity ends up depending on things the analyzer can't know, like which version of a dynamic librariy ends up linked at run time).