In just another few years, if Rust does not fizzle, you will feel the same way about code in Rust as it evolves and improves.
But how C++ was coded to older Standards was not wrong at the time. That code was chosen judiciously according to features of the language as it existed then, and our understanding of it and our world.
Changes in languages are not random. Every last change in each new C++ Standard was in response to recognition that code would be better using the proposed change. Failing to use the new features as intended, after, would amount to choosing not to write code better.
Rust started at a snapshot of how problems of coding were understood at one time. Our understanding today and the world we program for have changed markedly from that time. Both will continue changing. What is good Rust will also change as the world, our understanding of it, and the language all change.
> In just another few years, if Rust does not fizzle, you will feel the same way about code in Rust as it evolves and improves.
I've written fairly extensive amounts of code in C, C++, Rust, Python, Java, OCaml, Haskell, Clojure, Common Lisp, Scheme, and probably some others that aren't coming to mind right now. All of these languages except Rust have been around for decades (and I guess Clojure is about a decade and a half). My opinion of these languages vary. They all have their warts. Some of these languages I don't particularly like. Some of them are complicated, some are fairly simple.
But C++ is the only one where I feel like the basic features of the language are actively working against me. It's the only one where I feel like such a huge portion of language design decisions were utterly baffling and wrong.
IME some members of the C++ community can be fairly insular. They just can't see how things are done outside their world. You expect me to believe that I'll eventually feel the same way about Rust as I do about C++, but I know that's unlikely to be true because C++ is the only language that I feel this way about.
But how C++ was coded to older Standards was not wrong at the time. That code was chosen judiciously according to features of the language as it existed then, and our understanding of it and our world.
Changes in languages are not random. Every last change in each new C++ Standard was in response to recognition that code would be better using the proposed change. Failing to use the new features as intended, after, would amount to choosing not to write code better.
Rust started at a snapshot of how problems of coding were understood at one time. Our understanding today and the world we program for have changed markedly from that time. Both will continue changing. What is good Rust will also change as the world, our understanding of it, and the language all change.
Failure to adapt is just failure.