[rich_sasha]

Since you’re kind enough to express a moderate opinion: do you have a comparison against C++?

The C++ “niche” seems to be no-performance-compromise, low-level-when-needed, high-level-sort-of, native compilation, seamless interop with C, and thus everything else. It is also very verbose, easy to shoot yourself in the foot, and requires a fair amount of proficiency to just use on a daily basis.

Can Rust be the replacement / successor?

[nyanpasu64]

Not the parent, but I think in a vacuum Rust would be pretty good at filling C++'s niche (minimal performance compromise, low-level-when-needed, high-level-sort-of, native compilation, though C interop is less seamless), plus it's more expressive/beautiful (but more troublesome if you want to mutate aliased pointers), and teaches you upfront to avoid pitfalls. But Rust has less thorough library support (though Rust does have some really cool libraries), and the existing practices around separate compilation and stable ABI can't be carried to Rust. I also dislike the culture of downloading dependencies from the Internet.

[zozbot234]

> and the existing practices around separate compilation and stable ABI can't be carried to Rust

They totally can, by using the C ABI. C++ ABI is not really "stable" anyway, it's been long due for a break.

[couchand]

For what it's worth, I think of Rust as simply encoding modern C++ best practices in the compiler and dropping all the old cruft.