I think a better title for this post would be "Rust is not C". I'm also not sure how stating the number of features recently added to a 47yo language is very s

I think a better title for this post would be "Rust is not C". I'm also not sure how stating the number of features recently added to a 47yo language is very small and the number of features added to a 8yo language is very large proves any point. That you don't care about safety or concurrency has nothing to do with the title, and frankly betrays that this article is more about Rust not being last decade's systems language as opposed to Rust being a good candidate for future projects that would otherwise have chosen C.