[bla3]

If they use Rust for new code and C++ changes are all in old code, this could be explained just by older code being more risky to change.

[nixpulvis]

Funny, another commenter on this post was saying the opposite, that Rust was likely being used to just port existing features and that was easier because there were probably good tests for it already.

If you've actually written considerable amounts of Rust and C++, these statistics don't require justification. In my opinion it's completely expected that Rust code is easier to write correctly.

[danudey]

As a relatively novice programmer who's worked in tech for decades but not as a software developer: I take issue with the idea that you need to write considerable amounts of Rust and C++ for these statistics to be expected. In fact, despite Rust's initial vertical learning curve I'd say that any junior developer trying to implement anything with any degree of complexity at all in Rust and C++ would see the benefits.

At the very least, the fact that IDE integration can tell you all kinds of stuff about what you're doing/doing wrong and why accelerates things greatly when you're starting out.

[kridsdale1]

I’d say the same applies for Swift vs ObjC.

Let’s end the C era.

[nicoburns]

I think they're comparing new code in Rust vs new code in C++.