No, I did not imply that. I do believe making new languages is a good if they can fix or improve on fundamental problems in existing languages that cannot actually be fixed in such languages in satisfying way. For example, type safety in C++. It's unlikely we're going to be able to get rid of implicit conversions which can be evil at times, so it would make sense to make a new language to fix that. However, that is not enough. You have to consider the fact that new languages need to mature, too. C++ is a big language. How long is it going to take Rust to get to the same point while fixing the fundamental weaknesses? I don't think C++ is fundamentally broken and needs fixing. I also don't see what Rust truly offers that makes it "so much better" that it warrants replacing other "mature" languages.