Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue that Rust is meaningfully simpler than C++. Mind you, it's also a fairly feature-rich language, but the complexity of C++ comes from decades of new features building up trying to supersede older features. C++ is several different languages by now depending on which feature set you use, but Rust is still just one language. C++'s complexity is also a product of design choices like using templates to do both g…
I don't know much about Rust, because it doesn't seem to be the kind of language I want to use, so I can't personally speak to its complexity. However, I do know that a lot of objections to it from the people I follow are around the borrow checker and both the friction and high[0] compile times it causes. [0] to put that in context, Jon is frequently annoyed by the sub-second linking time incurred by LLVM because it…
What makes it worse is that complication doesn't even exist for "good" technological reasons; it only exists for inertial, industrial reasons like compatibility with C and 1980s naivete -- both because of and in spite of it, since, like the other person said, even more complexity was bolted on to try to force new lessons without breaking backwards compatibility.
I used to love C++, since I thought its complexity was somehow, fundamentally necessary for a lang to be a "fancier C". Once I learned Rust and found out that was not true, I now hate C++ with a passion and can't wait until it completely displaces C++, which it should do ASAP[0]. :D
THAT SAID, some people (who are much better programmers than I am), say that C++ is the most expressively versatile language around, which is at least a "good" technological reason for its enduring existence. That's one I can't relate to, though, since the people who are saying that tend to be talking about very advanced, byzantine aspects of C++ that I never got to.
