>"Rust is a superior technology to C++....it disciplines you to do the things the right way."

It is not. The only thing it disciplines one to do is to bend them to confines of particular safety model. And Rust creators do not have the ultimate authority to say what is the right way anyways. No one does. There are multiple concepts fitting different situations. Rust ignores many. As a general language it looks way too opinionated to me.

> Rust ignores many [safety models]. As a general language it looks way too opinionated to me.

I'd like to see some actual examples of this, and I assume many Rust devs would react the same way. In practice, most proposed "safety models" that Rust complains about don't really work when considering that code must be enabled to interact not just within a single module but rather across modules. This is where Rust nudges developers to make the right choices for successful programming "in the large", while still providing the "unsafe" featureset for safety assurances within a single, self-contained context.

This is what keeps tripping me up, it is very difficult to be both general and not opinionated. C++ is general, you can use it however you want. Especially in many unsafe ways. Like it or not, this is great news for a general low-level language. A language that tells me how to build, where my files should live and what tools I am to use may be a great user experience, it is not very general. Still not sure what to make of this and where I land on this.