Jonathan Blow puts it as the "cost of experimentation being too high" which I would agree with. Generally, as an individual or small group the limiting factor f

Jonathan Blow puts it as the "cost of experimentation being too high" which I would agree with. Generally, as an individual or small group the limiting factor for you at times becomes time. Sort of the philosophy where you design by programming instead of whiteboard or clearcut stuff. Less flexible design but more automatic correctness is worth it for big companies because projects involve millions of lines of code and thousands of people over the lifecycle. It's sort of like writing microservices when you're an one man shop. The correct philosophy is monolith first - until you're doing something useful, don't obsess that much. If you've got a clear vision of each project, or perhaps it's a larger scale project more similar to those in big tech, then perhaps Rust is best. But those kinds of projects typically don't even need C++/Rust. I use C++ for high performance experimental software. I would like a C++ replacement also though, maybe through a design like Carbon where it's built above it. You could also then do stuff like making the borrow checker optional and with parts of the program instead, as a sort of finalization refactor. Combining the best of both worlds.