&gt;Large existing codebases are a strength of C++ though. Any new replacement language won&#x27;t magically make those codebases go away.<p>Which I already said...<p>&gt;&gt;I don&#x27;t debate this fact. But legacy C code never stood in the way of C++&#x27;s adoption. There are always gonna be MORE programmers tomorrow, then today. People adopting a language is hardly a zero sum game.<p>&gt;For example GCC is begin ported to C++ with relative ease, while a rewrite in rust would be a significantly more complex endeavor.<p>Source or opinion?<p>&gt;Then again, beyond lifetime checking, rust and C++ are very similar languages and seamless interoperability is not inconceivable. I believe that&#x27;s the missing feature for rust to achieve world domination.<p>No I agree. Seemless importing with C++ would be amazing. Name mangling in C++ is just a bit of an issue. Rust works great with C. The FFI is very stable. I use Rust libraries at work as generating 32bit DLL&#x27;s is possible with nightly.