> I feel like I am solving problems in C++ the way that I want to, I guess, in a very opinionated way. And I don't like to compromise on the design. Me too! I'

> I feel like I am solving problems in C++ the way that I want to, I guess, in a very opinionated way. And I don't like to compromise on the design. Me too! I'm glad that Rust has managed to champion extensive static analysis forward, but at the same time it's clear that rustc can prove only a proper subset of correct programs correct. I don't like the idea of being restricted to a subset of correct programs. The philosophy of C++ is to allow anything that could be correct, but you can still use tools to detect suspicious code. The difference is that you can ignore the false positives.