As long as you limit yourself to a subset of modern C++, it's actually a decent language. Less guardrails than Rust, but more syntactic sugar (think overloading, default parameters, implicit this, implicit reference-taking, implicit conversions). You could argue those are anti-features, but even as someone who really likes Rust, I gotta admit C++ is occasionally more ergonomic.
paperplane
Seriously. There are a lot of parallels between GPUs (or NPUs for ML inference) and quantum processors in terms of being architected towards a more specialized form of computation and I could totally see QPUs being a thing in the future, probably mostly for number cruncing (see Grover/Shor's algorithms). Though if Grover search suddenly becomes the way of quickly searching for files or something, who knows, maybe this might be more useful for general computing than we think.
In the 80s no one thought computers would be something normal people would use at home, they were seen as a tool for mathematicians and nerds. Now look at the world today. Who knows what the future will hold.
It's opt-in in Swift 5 mode and opt-out in Swift 6 mode, the Swift 6 compiler supports both modes though and lets you migrate a codebase on a module-by-module basis.
Agree that opt-in sort of defeats the point, but in practice it's a sort of unavoidable compromise (and similar to unsafe Rust there will always be escape hatches)
Having the ability to overload functions or constructors without a million
Stuff::with_x
variants is something I consider more ergonomic and not unsafe. I know the Rust community prefers explicitness in many places, but explicitness and safety are somewhat orthogonal in language design. I consider e.g. Swift to be a safe and ergonomic/sugared language, that borrows, no pun intended, a lot of ideas from Rust