> Rust is trying to be replacement of C++. Citation needed. Rust lacks so many fundamental C++ "features" (variadics, thin pointers, HKTs, const generics, spe

> Rust is trying to be replacement of C++. Citation needed. Rust lacks so many fundamental C++ "features" (variadics, thin pointers, HKTs, const generics, specialization, overloading, inheritance, good FFI with C++, C++ exceptions, ...), that trying to sell it as a C++ replacement is quite hard. OTOH, Rust is pretty much at feature parity with C, having excellent interoperability with it, and only lacking somewhat in inline assembly, allocas/VLAs, etc. You can take any C project, and implement a new feature or refactor some part of it in Rust without issues. You can't do the same for C++ code easily: integrating with C++ templates is hard (e.g. try to use a C++ Boost library, or the C++ standard library from Rust), integrating with C++ error handling is hard (try to write Rust code that can error using C++ exceptions, or that can be unwinded with one), calling C++ ABIs is hard from Rust, interfacing C++ types with Rust is also hard (inheritance, virtual functions, etc.). Any successful C++ projects that uses Rust (e.g. Firefox), uses Rust as a better C to implement a C library, that can be called from C++. That's not "being a better C++" in any way of the word.