Problem with C++ has never been that it's "bad" or whatever. I worked with people who did stuff all over the axis (back when I was doing C/C++, which is the int

Problem with C++ has never been that it's "bad" or whatever. I worked with people who did stuff all over the axis (back when I was doing C/C++, which is the interval of 13 to 20 years ago): from drivers to Windows 98/XP MFC GUI programs, and the complaint always was that hey, there is yet another C++ version that fixes old problems but offers no way to (semi-)automatically migrate the existing code to the newer and better/safer API. I ain't here to shit on C++; I've looked at v20 and I liked what I saw. But the problem remains: there are tens of millions of coding lines written in older style C++ that are never going to be rewritten in a more modern version of C++. We might as well just rewrite them in Rust, or, if a better systems language with the same (or better) guarantees emerges, rewrite them in that. I in particular don't think it has to be Rust at all costs; I just happen to think it's the best mix of a systems and application language with the borrow checker and (mostly) fearless concurrency -- at least as of today. --- A small aside: IMO many people deliberately don't draw a distinction between loud fanboys and people who legitimately and objectively evaluated Rust and found it a net win for their needs. In many HN discussions only the first group is mentioned, the second one almost never. That's definitely not a fair representation of the Rust community. All programming languages have loud obnoxious fanboy minorities and I don't understand why Rust is being shat on regularly (here on HN) for something that exists everywhere. I can only theorize many people got rubbed the wrong way at the start and then don't care to make an objective analysis afterwards.