As someone who never liked writing anything C++ since 2000+ (did like it before) I cannot agree with this. C++ and Rust are not comparable in this sense at all.

One can argue Rust is what C++ wanted to be maybe. But C++ as it is now is anything but clean and clear.

Comparing Rust to C++ feels strange to me.

It’s like people do it just because Zig is very comparable to C. So the more complex Rust must be like something else that is also complex, right? And C++ is complex, so…

But that is a bit nonsensical. Rust isn’t very close to C++ at all.

It is kind of interesting that the Linux kernel is slowly adopting Rust, whereas Zig seems like it would be a more natural fit?

I know, timelines not matching up, etc.

I found swift way more enjoyable than rust as a C++ alternative. It even has first class-ish interop now.

My take, unfortunately, is that Zig might be a more modern C but that gives us little we don’t already have.

Rust gives us memory safety by default and some awesome ML-ish type system features among other things, which are things we didn’t already have. Memory safety and almost totally automatic memory management with no runtime are big things too.

Go, meanwhile, is like a cleaner more modern Java with less baggage. You might also compare it to Python, but compiled.

Seriously asking, where Go sits in this categorization?

Zig is Modula-2/Object Pascal re-packaged with a C like syntax.

C++ added OOP to C.

Rust is not object-oriented.

That makes your statement wrong.

Time to start zig++