Argh I'm so tired of this "technicality". Yes, technically C and C++ are different languages, and C is not a subset of C++ (which is a pretty big problem btw). But C++ has been derived from C, then forked its C subset into an incompatible dialect, while not fixing any of C's problems (which would've been an actually good reason to not call it "C/C++"). I think it's fair to call C++ "C/C++", because it will always be a confusing mishmash of C and the features that C++ added on top.
The problem is that we have no idea what you're talking about when you say C/C++. For you it seems to be C++, for someone else it might be both or it might be "one or the other but I don't know which." For yet someone else it might be really just C.
If you were to think that Rust is a good replacement for C++, why not just say that Rust is a good replacement for C++? That makes it clear what you mean, and thus the obvious follow-up: a lot of people would like a replacement for C, which is arguably not what Rust is.
And this is very on-topic for a discussion where someone asked "why Zig over Rust?" Zig is arguably closer in spirit to C than Rust is.
When you say Rust is a good replacement for C/C++, a lot of people read it as if you were treating C and C++ as one language and that Rust is a good replacement for both. It should not be hard to see why this is very controversial, given that they are very different languages and people tend to like one and dislike the other. It's going to be very hard to please both camps.
I agree, and my reply was more in reaction to the snark in the reply above. Even a lot of C++ programmers don't know that C is actually quite a different language than the "subset of C++ that kinda looks like C" and are surprised when they see "proper" C99 code for the first time. If even "experts" don't quite know the differences between "actual C" and the "C-like subset of C++", it's a bit much to ask the same of people who only have casual knowledge of "C/C++".
You are right, my message did come out as snarky... sorry about that, it was not my intention. I agree with you, the Zig language appeals precisely to those people who enjoy proper, modern C, and want a better language. It does not appeal at all to people who want "a better C++". Thus I was suggesting to understand the distinction between C and C++ as the main point.
Not everyone agrees with the line "Rust is a C++ replacement, not a C replacement." I work with a bunch of C folks who never considered C++, but love Rust now.
It's sort of the same thing as people who say "Go is a C replacement." That is a thing some people say, but to me, it never really made sense.
The key is, what a language means to the person who uses it can differ between people. And what benefits they see out of another language can differ between people.
Sorry about the rant.