[skocznymroczny]

As someone who looks at Rust and other alternative languages every now and then. I think many C/C++ programmers are looking for an alternative. C/C++ accumulated a lot of legacy stuff over the years, and things like #includes, .h vs .cpp, non-trivial metaprogramming, limited IDE capabilities, no standarized package manager show how old these languages are.

Compare it to Rust, which has one build tool/package manager. No more hunting down dependencies, arguing make vs cmake vs 20 other tools. 99% of projects just use cargo and building a project on every platform is just one cargo build run away. Compiler is smart and can show you many errors in your code that C++ never could. Old mechanisms like header files are replaced with a modern module mechanism. Also some interesting features like the traits system.

All that with performance close to C/C++ and with increased safety. Also, there is a lot of hype behind the language making it reach critical mass. It's not surprising to see many people flock to it. Some people dumped C/C++ in the past for Java/C#, but these languages don't support the same usecases as C/C++ do. Rust does.

Personally I dumped C/C++ for D years ago and don't regret it. It's not as popular as Rust is, and doesn't have the same ecosystem or big companies behind it, but it works for my needs. If Rust existed at the time I was looking for an alternative, I'd probably be using Rust now.

[bestouff]

> 99% of projects

I don't know where you got this figure from, but I highly doubt 1% of Rust projects use a different build/package system. More like 0.001% (this number is scientifically extracted from thin air).

[spicyusername]

99% in this context is an expression of speech.

OP doesn't literally mean 99%, they mean "almost everyone". The actual numerical value is irrelevant.

[lumost]

Most rust projects with special deps (libtorch) need another build manager.

Regardless parent was implying that almost everyone everywhere uses cargo.