>> Rusts features look to be a superset of C++... You could substitute "too complex" with "too big". Feature wise I'd say Rust has more in common with a functi

>> Rusts features look to be a superset of C++... You could substitute "too complex" with "too big". Feature wise I'd say Rust has more in common with a functional language. * Consistent type system. (base types like int are objects) * Emphasis on type safety. * First class functions and Lambdas. * Pattern matching. * All memory is somehow managed or owned. (#1) * Isolated concurrent memory. (No need for semaphores/mutexes) * 'variables' are immutable by default. * Types with traits instead of a "class" system. (#2) * No exception catching (#3) * Generics (#4) * No direct null/nil (Options are used instead.) * Concurrency is built in. * Can allocate on the stack, or via a managed 'box' on the heap. (#5) * Has the ability to link to and call C code. * Has the ability to break out into inline assembly. * Macros. (#6) The manual is reasonably decent: http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/rust.html http://static.rust-lang.org/doc/rust.html #1) Technically you can break out into unsafe memory operations or assembly. You have to specifically mark your code as 'unsafe' when doing so however. #2) Similar to Haskell type classes and way simpler then C++ classes. #3) There is a kind of error/exception but they are way simpler and not meant to be managed like in C++/Java #4) Don't confuse generics with C++ templates. (C++ templates can be used for the same purpose, but is WAY more complex and interesting.) #5) Perhaps the most complex part of the language... Boxes are a bit like smart pointers but with way less code involved. #6) I have not gotten into this very deeply yet but it looks more like Lisp macros instead of C/C++ macros/preprocessing. For perspective... C++ has about 84 keywords. Go has 25 keywords plus several predeclared identifiers (true and false for example). Rust currently has 32 keywords. (Some of which are just syntactic sugar). >> I thought this was an interesting and friendly conversion, not a flame war. (Was trying to show that she saw the subject light heartedly.) It was meant more as a tease then an accusation :)