[nicoburns]

> Folks really ought to read the C/C++ literature to understand why Rust evolved in a unique direction. That gives better compare/contrast.

Unfortunately the C/C++ literature is dense and not at all approachable. The Rust literature is much, much better for newcomers to systems programming (partly because it doesn't have to cover a load of weird failure cases that simply don't exist in Rust).

> one _cannot_ just arbitrarily “go” from a higher level language to a systems language.

I mean, it's like learning anything new. You have to do a bit of unlearning, and grasp the core concepts. I don't think there is anything especially difficult about systems languages. I had a background of JavaScript and PHP, and I was able to pick up Rust well enough to use it in my day job in a couple of weeks.

[bjornjajayaja]

C/C++ has been around for a while and there is gobs of literature. For this I’m guessing you mean “the website literature.”

Many developers these days scarcely read books on subject matter. But if they did read books, they would find there’s actually more C/C++ literature and established best practices than there is for Rust (naturally).

The effective C++ series comes to mind as something not just approachable, but enjoyable and largely insightful.

The truth is... systems engineering is a discipline which requires an understanding of historical context. You get that with the C/C++ books! I highly recommend reading on it to better appreciate Rust.