Rust fans might complain that the static code analysis is not built in, and therefore working a "C++ job" will expose you to code that has not been properly sta

Rust fans might complain that the static code analysis is not built in, and therefore working a "C++ job" will expose you to code that has not been properly statically analyzed, or not with an analyzer up to your personal standards. Large projects can easily sink to the lowest common denominator of usage that the programming language allows. But in general I think most Rust fans would agree that C++ with static analysis is better than C++ without static analysis. C++ then still has the move semantics issue of being surprising and confusing, which I think is more than an "at first" issue -- and I think actually most programmers at most projects are relative novices (or outsiders) in the programming language they're working in. If you're rusty in C++, if you're junior, if you're just stepping in from another PL to look at some C++, this is an increase on cognitive load, even if the static analyzer will catch problems.