>Rust will eventually fail to the “jack of all trades, master of none” problem that C++ has. He's talking about C++ like it's some kind of failure and not one

>Rust will eventually fail to the “jack of all trades, master of none” problem that C++ has. He's talking about C++ like it's some kind of failure and not one of the most widely used languages in the world. Sounds like the author just doesn't like C++, so it's no surprise he doesn't like Rust either. >Yes, Rust is more safe. I don’t really care. In light of all of these problems, I’ll take my segfaults and buffer overflows. "I don't really care" isn't a good reason for ignoring one of Rust's strongest points. If you're not an expert in C like the author, then this would be one of the biggest reasons for choosing Rust over C. That being said, I agree than Rust isn't a good C replacement, mainly because it's more similar to C++.