I agree that the claim made by the parent might have been a bit too strong and not backed by enough evidence, but saying that C++ can technically do the same th

I agree that the claim made by the parent might have been a bit too strong and not backed by enough evidence, but saying that C++ can technically do the same thing as Rust is not really getting us anywhere. You can say the same thing for ASM. Can, in practice, a team write and maintain a modern CSS engine in pure assembly? In theory yes, in practice I expect the overhead to be massive. I think the key feature of Rust for such an application is "fearless concurrency". Writing concurrent code in C or C++ feels like walking a tightrope, in Rust I know that I can lean on the compiler to tell me when I'm doing something wrong. Sure, you can still have data races, but in my experience they're generally pretty simple to debug when they happen because the type system and borrow checker force you to have very explicit data dependency graphs. I avoid threads like the plague in C and C++, but in Rust I never hesitate if I feel like spawning a worker might improve performance or make the overall architecture simpler.