&gt; Unlike Stroustrup, he acknowledged the existence of Rust but said the lifetime annotations are too verbose.<p>As far as I can tell, this was an incorrect claim. The ISO Core C++ lifetime elision rules aren&#x27;t meaningfully more aggressive than Rust&#x27;s. We could easily add more elision to Rust if it turned out to be necessary, but the cases in which ISO Core C++ has extra lifetime elision rules that Rust doesn&#x27;t don&#x27;t come up often enough to make a difference.<p>Lifetime elision is a double-edged sword anyway. It&#x27;s somewhat controversial in the Rust community, because it&#x27;s not reading the lifetime annotations that causes the cognitive overhead: it&#x27;s the semantics and what the compiler will enforce. Having fewer lifetime annotations can actually make the code a lot more confusing. Based on experience, I would caution C++ to not go overboard with it: being able to show pretty code on slides is not worth confused and frustrated users.