> *We don't want Rust to become the new C++ do we? Isn't that what the article is arguing for? C++ has a standard that goes through the ISO process (horrible a

> *We don't want Rust to become the new C++ do we? Isn't that what the article is arguing for? C++ has a standard that goes through the ISO process (horrible as it is) to be vetted and finalized and implementors need time to catch up. They're moving faster than they used to but it's still 3 years between new releases of the specification and a little more than that for implementations to catch up and become stable.