I guess, two macro systems, ML type system, affine types, crates using nightly features, having a hard time keeping up with every six weeks feature drops.
I get two macro systems, but a coherent type system seems simpler to understand. The existence of "regular void" proposals seems to underscore that the "easy" C type system's incoherence doesn't end up being easy to work with or reason about.
And I don't see "crates using nightly features" as somehow a language complexity. Are we counting "Three different compilers with their own quirks" as a C++ complexity? Nor is the six week cadence a complexity. When naked functions stabilized a handful of people went "Hooray" and nearly everybody else doesn't care. And that's not even a feature in standard C++. You have to go read your vendor instructions and do it separately each time. "Yay!".
I like both languages, those are the issues where I see someone looking from outside and having such complexity claim as the OP.
The ecosystem is part of what means to use a specific language, though.
Yeah, having to guess what standards and extensions each C and C++ compiler implement, is also an issue with them, and will eventually come to Rust as implementations eventually come up, originally there was only CFront and UNIX System V compilers.
