> It's not a C family language, it just took C-like syntax to avoid the stigma of being "exotic" like the languages that inspired it.

I agree that Rust has very conventional C-like syntax, but I'd go further and say it has fairly conventional C-like semantics too, at least in its current iteration. I think you could safely duck type Rust itself as a C-like. :)

Strong agree that Rust has drawn great inspiration from the ML family by way of OCaml. Rust is a C-like with ML characteristics, which are its greatest quality, imho. On the other hand, I don't think there's much trace of Erlang left in Rust -- there's probably more Erlang in Go than Rust, and Go is squarely a C-like.

I think it's fair to say that Rust started out more exotic than it is now, but perhaps all that safe, C-like syntax has led to convergent evolution towards other C-likes?

> Rust did copy move semantics from C++, but even that ended up being different enough to be incompatible with basic C++ design patterns. Rust chose to have only trivially movable types and guarantee absence of move constructors, so it can't even safely pass a C++ std::string.

Right, but compare all of that to Erlang's actor-based message passing, where mandatory immutability averts the need to move or lock anything at all, and I think it's clear why one would group Rust with C++, and not Erlang.