| Only in Rust is the async use idiomatic, the C++ co_* is pretty new and not yet ready for prime time. References are not at all simpler, they're memory-safe, which in conjunction with lifetimes makes them significantly more complex to understand and write. This is a known problem...
In C++ I copy by default and move if I want to optimise. Moves also happen behind the scenes as an optimisation, this is how things should be, don't push the work on the programmer! I don't agree with your claim that a new person to Rust is more productive. What's that based on? In my experience, a new person to Rust will write memory-safe code by default, which is good, but they pay the cost of Rust's lack of ergonomics forever. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40172033 which covers async, refactoring and design issues that plague even experienced programmers. > Idiomatic rust is simpler than idiomatic c++ and it’s clearer what constitutes idiomatic rust whereas c++ in practice is rarely idiomatic and there are going to be conflicting ideas on what is idiomatic. It's really not, because C++ copies by default which is typically both memory-safe and very easy. If using smart pointers and clone was idiomatic in Rust, you'd have a point, instead references and lifetimes are idiomatic. Modern C++ has a pretty clear definition, albeit it's evolving as new things are added to the standard. C++ is moving too fast recently, but then again so is Rust. > This is ignoring the very real benefits of rarely to never dealing with a whole class of difficult to debug bugs (threading and memory safety) in the vast majority of code you’ll write . That, cargo and lack of historical baggage are the only real benefits of Rust compared to C++. The lack of ergonomics, slow compile times and to some extent the aggressive community make it far from a clear choice. |