> "Why I think C++ is still a desirable coding platform compared to Rust" And yet, C++ remains an undesirable coding platform, for the reason alone that there

> "Why I think C++ is still a desirable coding platform compared to Rust" And yet, C++ remains an undesirable coding platform, for the reason alone that there is no package manager. It's difficult to take this blog seriously when there is not even a faint mention of Cargo. But even beyond that, I have other gripes with other fundamental points of the author's case: > But is that an apples-to-apples comparison? Well, yes, if you are going to list the “safety” of Rust compared to C++ as a pro, then it’s just fair to list the performance hit of such safety in regards to execution speed. Making this claim without any numbers to back it up is a very bold move. In fact, looking at benchmarks you can see that Rust can be faster in a fair number of cases: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/rust-gpp.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... Sorry, but it strikes me that the people arguing against Rust are C++ die-hards are married so strongly to status-quo that they couldn't possibly imagine a better future. Which is of course no different than die-hards in other languages.