[int08h]

> In that sense, Rust enables escapism: When writing Rust, you get to solve lots of 'problems' - not real problems, mind you, but fun problems.

If this is true for Rust, it's 10x more true for C++!

Lifetime issues are puzzles, yes, but boring and irritating ones.

But in C++? Select an appetizer, entree, and desert (w/ bottomless breadsticks) from the Menu of Meta Programming. An endless festival of computer science sideshows living _in the language itself_ that juices the dopamine reward of figuring out a clever way of doing something.

[timmytokyo]

You're right about C++. A fairer comparison would be to a simpler garbage-collected language like Go.

[krupan]

Came here to comment on the same thing. I've never been able to articulate this as well as the author did, and it is so true! Every programming language requires you to solve some puzzles that are just in the way of the real problems you are trying to solve, but some much more than others.

People have compared Rust to C++ and others have argued that they really aren't alike, but I think it's in these puzzles that they are more alike than any other two languages. Even just reading rust code is a brain teaser for me!

I think this is why C and Zig get compared too. They apparently have roughly the same level of "fun problems" to solve.