Really? Rust has problems of its own. For example, I don't like that it moves (on assign or parameter pass) by default (versus copying in C++). My feeling that you'd end up explicitly cloning a lot. Then, there are no exceptions, and I'm not going back to dealing with error codes. Also, code in Rust looks a lot noisier than in C++ due to an excessive use of sigils in the language.
I was initially interested in Rust, but my interest faded when I read a bunch of (official or semi-official) tutorial all of which seemed to focus on just one thing: types of pointers in Rust (how many? 5?) and borrowing semantics. Having not experienced any significant problems with ownership and resource management in C++, Rust didn't look like a worthy investment of time.
Your experiences with Rust might be a bit outdated. I'm guessing you're referring to http://words.steveklabnik.com/pointers-in-rust-a-guide. Rust only has `&T` now, in those terms. And things like try! give you a feel that's somewhat exception-like, even without actual exceptions.
You still may not like Rust anyway, but if you haven't given the language a fresh look since well before 1.0, a lot has changed, as your opinion may have too.
Really? Rust has problems of its own. For example, I don't like that it moves (on assign or parameter pass) by default (versus copying in C++). My feeling that you'd end up explicitly cloning a lot. Then, there are no exceptions, and I'm not going back to dealing with error codes. Also, code in Rust looks a lot noisier than in C++ due to an excessive use of sigils in the language.
I was initially interested in Rust, but my interest faded when I read a bunch of (official or semi-official) tutorial all of which seemed to focus on just one thing: types of pointers in Rust (how many? 5?) and borrowing semantics. Having not experienced any significant problems with ownership and resource management in C++, Rust didn't look like a worthy investment of time.