>> Just wait how large the Rust surface area might have become in 2053.
This is a valid concern. One can hope that Rust evolves very slowly and as-needed. IMHO part of the problem with C++ is the fact that a committee exists to advance the language and produce regular updates. Combine that with most of the language already being defined (with a lot of overlap with C BTW) and you get a lot of bolted-on stuff and core features as part of the standard library that might have otherwise been part of the language with nice syntax. Rust had the advantage that a lot of things had been learned prior to its creation so things are cleaner. Lets hope keeping it that way is a priority and not just adding new things on top of new things - I think they're doing it right, but I don't really follow it.
C is great in this regard. The language is IMHO mostly "done" and rarely changes. I'm happy to use C99 and not much demands newer.
This is a valid concern. One can hope that Rust evolves very slowly and as-needed. IMHO part of the problem with C++ is the fact that a committee exists to advance the language and produce regular updates. Combine that with most of the language already being defined (with a lot of overlap with C BTW) and you get a lot of bolted-on stuff and core features as part of the standard library that might have otherwise been part of the language with nice syntax. Rust had the advantage that a lot of things had been learned prior to its creation so things are cleaner. Lets hope keeping it that way is a priority and not just adding new things on top of new things - I think they're doing it right, but I don't really follow it.
C is great in this regard. The language is IMHO mostly "done" and rarely changes. I'm happy to use C99 and not much demands newer.
Looking at Wikipedia I'm afraid C is starting to get too many updates, but the 2017 version is said to add no new features! :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)