Comparing Rust and C++
It might be a good idea to compare C++ and Rust and not “C with Classes and no use of compiler options” and Rust. They do have a fair point about ugly template error messages, but the remaining issues are mostly moot: Freed memory issues can be avoided using std::unique_ptr and its siblings, lost pointers to local variables shouldn’t occur when using references instead of pointers, uninitialised variables are warned against when compiling with the (hopefully standard) -Wall -Werror, implicit copy constructors can either be deleted or this particular issue can be avoided by using a unique pointer (which has no copy constructor, hence the enclosing classes’ copy constructor is also deleted), I don’t quite get the issue with memory overlap, which is mostly an issue of a function receiving the wrong number set of arguments for the way it is written. The bit about broken iterators is actually nice, but in this case could be avoided by handing an external function two const_iterator which then cannot be changed. I don’t get the problems with "A dangerous switch" and "A broken semicolons", both seem sensible constructs and if you have bugs, you have bugs. Multithreading works as expected, except that using C++11 <thread> would probably have been nicer and one would have to explicitly make e.g. the lambda passed to std::thread mutable.<p>All in all, yes, Rust seems to be a nice language and in particular the template system looks somewhat more understandable, but please don’t write "Comparing Rust and C++" when you’re not actually using C++ but some weird mishmash of C and C++. If there are new, delete or pointer arguments in functions in your code, you’re most likely doing it wrong.