> The extreme low level control that C++ offers and powerful metaprogramming allows for performance that even Rust cannot hope to rival.
Rust has vastly better metaprogramming, and as much low level control, no? And many low-level things are well-defined in Rust, and undefined behaviour or implementation-defined in C++.
Depends. Some metaprogramming features in C++ are currently ahead of Rust (values as generic parameters, generic associated types, constexpr, etc.), but Rust is ahead in other areas (procedural macros) and is working on parity in the other cases I mentioned. Meanwhile, Rust has none of C++'s legacy cruft, and its typed, trait-based generics are arguably a better foundation for metaprogramming than C++'s "dynamically typed at compile time" template system.
