It has an unfortunate name though, maybe a short shelf life. Rust++ doesn’t seem inviting either.

Rust does not have a ++ operator, so that name would make no sense.

Not yet.

I can assure you that Rust will never have a ++ operator. Not only is it semantically bizarre, it's entirely unnecessary in a language where iteration is overwhelmingly performed via iterators rather than via manually incrementing array indices.

Is that a bullet point in the Rust manifesto? :) In any case, ++ has taken another meaning outside of operator loading and such some.

The “Rust” branding, to this rando, implies corrosion, oxidation, decay, regardless of the true origin of the name. Swift is “quick”, Java is “caffeine”, Rust is something I need kerosene for.

Yes, it is pretty universally agreed upon that a ++ operator in Rust doesn’t make any sense. += 1 is barely longer, not special cased, and does not make users memorize odd precedence rules.

It doesn’t matter, I was speaking in terms of branding. There is ++ in C, but C is not C++.

Right, but the whole reason C++ is named C++ is because ++ is a valid operator in C. Without the operator in Rust, making the brand of a successor based on a feature from an entirely different language doesn't make any sense.

Rust isn't named after what you think it is, but after fungi.