[ncmncm]

The overwhelming majority of what you need to learn to understand old code is what was built out of the old code. Language complexity there is a rounding error. So, the relevant complexity is what you need to understand to write new code.

Detailed comparisons will be meaningless. It suffices that they are comparable, of similar order. Somebody coming from Haskell or an ML will have a completely different experience than somebody coming from JS or Python.

Move semantics and smart pointers are about the same in C++ and Rust, so do not count in a comparison.

I learned Rust a few years ago, but cannot follow Rust code examples published today. It has become markedly more complex in a short time.

For Rust not to fizzle, literally thousands of programmers wholly unacquainted with it will need to adopt it for each current user. None of the former come bought into any of what current users have chosen to endure. To get those programmers on board, things will need to happen that most current users do not perceive as necessary, many of which they would absolutely revile, and many others they do not consider worth enough effort.

Overcoming resistance to necessary change from current users will be much, much harder than getting the new users on board after changes. Getting enough new users on board without those changes is probably impossible.

[jolux]

> I learned Rust a few years ago, but cannot follow Rust code examples published today. It has become markedly more complex in a short time.

Interesting. I suspect this is where our experiences differ the most, I started learning Rust around when it came out and have felt it only get simpler and more consistent over time. I do not see many major differences between Rust written now and Rust written then. The biggest one is async, which is definitely a big difference.