> > Rust's claim to fame is C-like performance but with memory safety and no > garbage collector. >
I ran into some uni student Rust fans at a Meetup a few years ago. I was prompted by their enthusiasm to take my tablet to bed and read through the language Reference <https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/index.html>. I was quite impressed. It's like a neat, sensible, modern and concise cousin of C++. The compiler is very strict about passing around the ownership of objects, and in the absence of a GC this helps you stop doing stupid things. It's not all wine and roses though, as I got to a point where the syntax got progressively so cryptic that I gave up reading because I felt like I would be sitting for a difficult exam. They've fallen into the C++ trap of trying to jam everything and the kitchen sink into Rust. If it's designed for generating low-level high performance code (that claim that), then why is it crammed with a mountain of functional abstractions and terse syntax? I think Rust and C++ both want to be high-performance sports cars and comfy family sedans at the same time. *Greg*
