> Sadly I cannot say the same about Rust I know. It's hard to miss. :P My point was to reflect your claim of the suitability of C++. Rust is still young. Much

> Sadly I cannot say the same about Rust I know. It's hard to miss. :P My point was to reflect your claim of the suitability of C++. Rust is still young. Much younger in some domains than others. GUI is obviously one of them, and I suspect it will be quite a while before it ever catches up, if at all. If that were my requirement to use Rust, then I'd forget about it and check back in five years. I'm not sure where you are on the innovation curve[1], but I'd say Rust and GUI are all the way to the left right now. (I don't think Rust itself is, but GUI in Rust is.) There are bindings to existing toolkits, but as you say, they're hard to use. So I think some innovation is required and people are working on it. My guess is that you're somewhere in the "late majority" group on that curve. Partially because you seem to require support by the platform itself (not just platform support by the language) and also due to requiring a mature solution to a deeply complex problem (GUI). Those things tend to take a really long time to happen, if at all, unless they are built and created by the platform itself. Your desire for binary libraries isn't as out of reach though I think. It's just a hard problem to solve and there just honestly isn't a ton of motivation to do it as far as I can tell. It might require a well funded player to help move that along. (Not just in the work required to do it, but in the resources required to provide it I think.) [1] - https://www.ou.edu/deptcomm/dodjcc/groups/99A2/theories.htm https://www.ou.edu/deptcomm/dodjcc/groups/99A2/theories.htm