"Cannot" implies features that C++ has that Rust cannot offer. The article merely lists improvements to (modern) C++ that also solve issues within C++, that rus

"Cannot" implies features that C++ has that Rust cannot offer. The article merely lists improvements to (modern) C++ that also solve issues within C++, that rust solved. There may very well be things in C++ that rust cannot do, but the article doesn't go into them. As such, the title is not covering the content at all. And the tone of the article sounds very much like someone who is personally affronted by rust somehow. > So, thank you, Rust, for providing such valuable insights. Now, you can take your leave. I've fallen into this trap too often myself too, but if I feel personally attacked when someone really attacks technology that I "merely" use, it's a clear sign I'm far too much invested in what should really be "just some tools".