The 'Mutable value semantics' section reads like a carbon copy of the Rust borrow checker. Is it just me or is val just ripping it off completely? I'm honestly

The 'Mutable value semantics' section reads like a carbon copy of the Rust borrow checker. Is it just me or is val just ripping it off completely? I'm honestly not sure of this part so if I'm wrong someone can let me know. Other than that, the whole title of the article is manipulative. It's not a fair and balanced examination of all the possible successors of C++. The author admits he works on Val, and the article is obviously promoting Val as superior to other alternatives.