Your criticisms of C++ are correct. The language is janky to use and filled with edge cases. The standard library is designed by implementers to make most thing

Your criticisms of C++ are correct. The language is janky to use and filled with edge cases. The standard library is designed by implementers to make most things possible but few things easy (std::string::contains will be added in C++23 yay!). And using the same-ish iterator interface for vectors and hashmaps results in needlessly unsafe and verbose vector methods (foo.bar[index].insert(foo.bar[index].end(), ...)) and great difficulty implementing hashmap iterators that act like pointers. Nonetheless the cheat sheets largely do not reflect these issues, but the breadth of functionality C++ supplies. span and string_view are simple and elegant (aside from lifetime errors caught by Rust). Personally I think algorithms try to do too much, and it's not like other languages could cram in binary search, heap algorithms, reduce, scan, permutations... in a "simple, intuitive fashion", though duplicate functionality between iterators and ranges is a problem. Arithmetic conversions and promotions were a mistake (inherited from C) though, and lambda captures and mutability are complex. Reference collapsing has a simple slide but confusing semantics. I'm not sure I see any structured bindings either (these interact poorly with lambda captures lol).