That's true, but as someone that doesn't do much rust, C++ is a language where there are fewer restrictions and you can use little parts of the language, whereas Rust is supposed to be a simpler language overall, but with more concepts to learn up-front to prevent things that happen where there are no rules....

▲

zozbot234 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You can use "little parts of the language" in Rust too; the cleanest and most foundational part of Rust is pure value-based programming with no mutability or referencing at all, much like in a functional language (but with affine types!). Everything else is built quite cleanly on top of that foundation, even interior mutability which is often considered incredibly obscure. (It's called "interior" because the outer cell's identity doesn't really mutate, even though its content obviously does.)

▲

bsder 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Precisely.

You can subset C++ and still knock out a program.

You cannot subset Rust and still create a program.

	▲	tialaramex 11 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This seems like a very strange position, code written for Rust in 2015 still works, and in 2015 Rust just doesn't have const generics†, or async, or I/O safety, so... how is that not a subset of the language at it stands today ? † As you're apparently a C++ programmer you would call these "Non-type template parameters"
	▲	simonask an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You can absolutely make a complete, featureful program in Rust without naming a single lifetime, or even without dealing with a single reference/borrow. But Rust is a dramatically smaller language than C++. The various subsets of C++ people usually carve out tend to be focused on particular styles of programming, like “no exceptions” or “no RTTI”. Notably never things like “signed integer overflow is now defined”, or “std::launder() is now unnecessary”.