Why was this downvoted? It's not just another generic "rewrite it in Rust" comment. I was making a specific point that incremental rewrites of existing C++ code are very possible in Rust. And that process would not be that different from rewriting the code in a "safe" dialect of C++.
If it makes you feel better you can rename the Rust language to "C++2.0" but the rewrite process itself will be the same in both cases. You keep expanding the amount of safe code you have within the codebase over time, one module at a time.
Your first sentence comes across as incredibly combative, and not everyone agrees. Personally, that's why I downvoted it. It would be a much better comment if it was the same thing without it.
For example, one advantage of this strategy as opposed to an incremental Rust re-write is that you would retain a single toolchain, whereas that would require having two.
Yes, it's an extension to C++, so as it is implemented now in Circle, and as it would be if it were to be standardized, it would be part of the regular toolchain.
If it makes you feel better you can rename the Rust language to "C++2.0" but the rewrite process itself will be the same in both cases. You keep expanding the amount of safe code you have within the codebase over time, one module at a time.