I mean yes, C++ managed to hit a uncanny overlap of being very overenginered in some aspects which to make it worse haven't focused at all on non-senior/export dev UX while also being underenginered in others aspects :/
They are trying to fix it in recent ~10 years, but they are also adding new clever expert features at the same time, so I kinda see it as a lost cause.
Rust isn't doesn't have "that" much less complexity if you take all the stable (or worse unstable experimental) things it has.
What makes Rust so nice is nearly always(1) if you don't use a feature you don't have to know about it (not so in C++) and if you stumble about a feature you don't know it's not just normally syntax visible but if you use it wrongly it won't segfault or even have a RCE due to out of bounds writes or similar.
So for C++ you have to learn a lot of the stuff upfront, but are not forced to by the compiler, and getting it wrong can have catastrophic consequences.
But for Rust you can learn it (mostly) bit by bit.
It's not perfect, when you go unsafe you are touching on a lot of "modern compiler" complexity which now also need to map to rust guarantees (but also have better save guards/visibility in Rust).
And async doesn't work so well with the bit by bit learning.
But in my personal experience if you don't have a team only consisting of senior C++ devs I would stay far away from C++. On the other hands with the right guidelines/limitations using rust with junior engineers is just fine (the guidelines matter to not get hangup on the wrong things or over-complicate things).
I keep reaching out to C++, because there is plenty of stuff out there that has C++ SDKs, or has their language runtimes partially written in C++, and adding another language in the middle like Rust will hardly help, only make the whole stack even more complex.
They are trying to fix it in recent ~10 years, but they are also adding new clever expert features at the same time, so I kinda see it as a lost cause.
Rust isn't doesn't have "that" much less complexity if you take all the stable (or worse unstable experimental) things it has.
What makes Rust so nice is nearly always(1) if you don't use a feature you don't have to know about it (not so in C++) and if you stumble about a feature you don't know it's not just normally syntax visible but if you use it wrongly it won't segfault or even have a RCE due to out of bounds writes or similar.
So for C++ you have to learn a lot of the stuff upfront, but are not forced to by the compiler, and getting it wrong can have catastrophic consequences.
But for Rust you can learn it (mostly) bit by bit.
It's not perfect, when you go unsafe you are touching on a lot of "modern compiler" complexity which now also need to map to rust guarantees (but also have better save guards/visibility in Rust).
And async doesn't work so well with the bit by bit learning.
But in my personal experience if you don't have a team only consisting of senior C++ devs I would stay far away from C++. On the other hands with the right guidelines/limitations using rust with junior engineers is just fine (the guidelines matter to not get hangup on the wrong things or over-complicate things).