> why can't Rust developers just import a C++ library that does the job? We can and frequently do. Rust even seems to have one of the better packaging stories

> why can't Rust developers just import a C++ library that does the job? We can and frequently do. Rust even seems to have one of the better packaging stories around building C++ libs, albeit with several heavyweight dependencies (C++ compiler + toolchain, libc, etc.). Granted, calling into it from Rust means we need a C ABI, but that's rarely a terrible problem. > What novelty would a Rust version of the same thing bring really? I find Rust easier to cross compile for starters. I still haven't tamed emscripten for compiling C++ as WASM - the Rust toolchains by comparison make compiling Rust to WASM trivial. Rust's larger stdlib, standard package manager, and healthy library ecosystem means whatever I'm cross compiling is less likely to need to resort to platform specific nonsense in need of manual porting. But the main draw of Rust to me is the ability to write memory safe code and race-safe native code, reducing how many heisenbugs I encounter and the portion of the codebase where they might lurk. If your codebase is large, and mostly memory/race safe, this is a huge advantage. If your codebase is large, and only 50% memory/race safe, you're still frequently in debugging hell inside a large haystack. If you take a super solid C++ dependency, maybe you kinda retain that advantage, but most C++ dependencies I take on don't meet that high bar (including those me and my coworkers write!) Alternatively, I could take on a relatively mediocre Rust dependency, and I'll probably still retain that memory/race-safety advantage. There are exceptions to this of course thanks to Rust's many opt-in escape hatches - but I also find it much easier to audit Rust code for their use and the possible problems they may cause, versus C++ where every array access is suspect.