I think it's especially hasty to criticize Rust's string types in the context of C++, given the standardization of string_view in C++ as an analogue of Rust's &str :P
To me, Rust's &str seems a lot more like const char* (with a size tacked on for bounds checking). But you're the expert, so if I did agree they were the same, then C++ adopting it in the STL is practically proof it's a mistake in Rust.
You never addressed my other "too clever" items in Rust. Does that mean, other than strings, we agree?
You never addressed my other "too clever" items in Rust. Does that mean, other than strings, we agree?