[gefhfffh]

I get that the compile process is faster, but simpler?

In my experience, the compile process usually consists of "cargo build"

A advantage of Rust is that usually you spend way less time debugging, because the compiler prevents many mistakes from compiling in the first place.

[bruce343434]

I have an IDE with clang-lint and I find that it can spot pretty much every mistake. It can even detect some lifetime issues. Other than that my programming style is very much pass-by-value, trust the compiler to inline it, so the typical memory safety issues are simply not relevant to me.

[pornel]

Pass-by-value and let LLVM clean it up is also the idiomatic Rust way. rust-analyzer is pretty good for IDE integration, and it will catch way more than clang-lint (global lifetime analysis with guaranteed correctness, not just best-affort local, and thread safety/data races).

Regarding compile times, Rust has a different approach. Instead of a fast cycle of run and see if it broke, it's more of following compiler nags until the program is correct and runs on the first try. Incremental (cached) compile times aren't too bad these days.

[gefhfffh]

Before I tried Rust (I got sick of it and the slow progress of Herb Sutter's research), I have used CLion with clang-tidy and had plenty of memory issues going undetected.

Needless to say I didn't restrict myself to pass-by-value (compatible -> structs with ptrs are problematic as well) style, which seems quite restrictive

[pjmlp]

With current ISO C++ velocity and the stance to keep doing language evolution in person meetings, I don't think Herb's proposals will ever come to be, and even if they do, it won't matter when they most likely can only make it post-ISO C++26 with best efforts.