Great, if you are right everyone is going to be using Rust eventually.

I like the concepts proposed by Rust but do not like fighting with the borrow checker or sprinkling code with box, ref, cell, rc, refcell, etc.

At some point there’s going to be a better designed language that makes these pain point go away.

> Great, if you are right everyone is going to be using Rust eventually.

Every task does not need speed and safety. Therefore, "everyone" doesn't need Rust.

But I could easily see a future where C++ is relegated to legacy language status. It has already had decades of garbage-collected languages chipping away at most of its general-purpose uses, but Rust seems capable and in a position to take away most of its remaining niches.

It's kind of why the old C++ programmer that I am decided to learn Rust in the first place - seemed like a good idea at the time to skate where the puck is heading.

> I like the concepts proposed by Rust but do not like fighting with the borrow checker or sprinkling code with box, ref, cell, rc, refcell, etc.

I'm not sure why this would be confusing or disliked by a C++ dev.

Rust's Box<T> is similar to C++'s std::unique_ptr<T>.

Rust's Rc<T>, Arc<T>, and Rc<RefCell<T>> serve similar uses to C++'s std::shared_ptr<T>.

Rust's Weak<T> is similar to C++'s std::weak_ptr<T>.

Verbosity of both is nearly identical. The big difference is that Rust enforces the rules around aliasing and mutability at compile time, whereas with C++ I get to find out I've made a mistake when my running code crashes.