[geofft]

All of those problems are long-term solved by using more Rust, whereas none of C++'s problems are long-term solved by using more C++.

(Personally, I don't find single-vendor or lack of standardization a problem in practice, and I've never written C++ for a platform Rust doesn't support.)

[Vogtinator]

Both of them can be solved by giving it more time, but C++ is currently way ahead.

[geofft]

I'm not sure that's true. Giving C++ 30 years has resulted in the things identified in the article. (In particular, giving auto_ptr 20+ years hasn't resulted in anything that really fixes the problem.) It is not clear to me that it's moving in the right direction, so I don't think more time will help. C++ is definitely ahead in popularity but is neither ahead not obviously aimed in the right direction in safety.

Giving Rust about ten years has resulted in significant growth in popularity and tooling, including attempts to write new implementations of the language (e.g., mrustc), so given more time and in particular given more production users, it seems reasonable to expect it will figure all those things out.

[whyever]

I don't think that C++'s memory safety issues can be solved by giving it more time.