[tlamponi]

Not really, it even lost quite a bit o baggage when becoming 1.0.

The features it gets now are all mostly on the roadmap since quite a bit and neither surprising nor do the feel like a huge pile of "everything I can imagine" thrown together.

Rust is several order of magnitudes away become such clogged like C++ is, and also its feature acquisition accelerates slower than the one of C++. The only thing slower than that acceleration is probably its compile speed, but here C++ isn't really better. :)

From observing both since a bit I just really got the feeling that rust adoption of things was more thought out to fit the existing language and ecosystem, not 100% perfect, but much more fitting than what C++ did, i.e., mixing in every thing they could get their hands on, while some actually made things better, a lot just do not go well when being together.

[moldavi]

As much as I enjoy Rust, I have to agree with GP. Rust team needed to add a lot of complexity to the language to allow us to solve the borrow checker puzzles, such as Pin, Cell/RefCell, split_at_mut, the list goes on, and keeps growing.

In my modern C++ projects, I only really need to know std::move and std::unique_ptr.

The real question to ask is how much complexity one's willing to pay for memory safety. I'm willing to pay it, but with open eyes about the complexity cost I'm paying.