[asitdhal]

Most C++ developers won't easily develop systems in Rust because of lack of well-known libraries and a stable ecosystem(profilers, static analyzers, concurrency tools, many skilled and mediocre developers, etc). C++11 and subsequent versions have a good amount of memory safety(though not as safe as Rust).

Rust is a modern language with very good concepts and features. It's quite complicated to learn.

My answer is it will be a good language, but won't be a top language.

[roca]

I'm not sure what "concurrency tools" are. Profiling tools that work on C++ should work on Rust just as well; "perf" and "sysprof" do, at least. "static analyzers" are far less important in Rust since the compiler prevents most of the bugs that C++ static and dynamic checkers look for. Having said that, ASAN and TSAN do work with Rust!

As for "complicated to learn" ... Rust does have a significant learning curve. However, so does C++, and the C++ learning curve never ends: http://whereswalden.com/2017/02/27/a-pitfall-in-c-low-level-... https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=683729... I've been programming in C++ for over 20 years, plus I have a PhD in programming language tech, yet there are many dark corners of the language I don't understand, and more keep getting added all the time. "Complexity budget" is not a phrase you hear in the C++ community.

I suspect many C++ fans aren't bothered about this because their knowledge has grown with the language. I pity someone trying to "learn C++" in its full glory.

[Nomentatus]

Like... Cobol... 'cause all those reasons are vanishing and will vanish.

[asitdhal]

Those who need Cobol use them(Core banking applications).

Rust is better than C++, but it's not extremely better than C++.

[Nomentatus]

Extremely safer seems to me to be extremely better, these days.