[edflsafoiewq]

Here's one example:

In C++, creating an instance of a class is fantastically complicated. The class must be initialized, and there is a zoo of different initialization forms: value, direct, aggregate, default, list, copy, etc. Which one foo {} invokes has been the subject of a spec bug. Some of these invoke a constructor, which is like a function, but isn't a function, multiplying the number of concepts involved further. Constructors suffer from bizarre syntactic limitations. They need a special syntax for handling exceptions. The form foo f(); famously declares a function instead of default initializing f. The [dcl.init] section of the spec is about 16 pages long and there are about another dozen about how constructors work in the special member functions section.

In Rust, there is exactly one way to create an instance of a struct: you provide a value for each of its fields.

[pegasuscollins]

> In Rust, there is exactly one way to create an instance of a struct: you provide a value for each of its fields.

As a user of both rust and and C++, I certainly wouldn't consider the the lack of default constructors in rust to be a good thing. Especially for std types like Vec it is really annoying to have to initialize it explicitly.

> The [dcl.init] section of the spec is about 16 pages long and there are about another dozen about how constructors work in the special member functions section.

That is a bad argument if you're comparing to a language that doesnt have a spec. Maybe a complete, exhaustive rust spec would be much longer than the C++ standard?

[masklinn]

> As a user of both rust and and C++, I certainly wouldn't consider the the lack of default constructors in rust to be a good thing. Especially for std types like Vec it is really annoying to have to initialize it explicitly.

That is fair but orthogonal to the issue at hand, namely:

> How is Rust less complicated than C++?