The article puts several arguments forth, but it misses what Rust's tagline is: "Empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software. ". Yes, the C++ talent pool is currently bigger than the Rust talent pool, but the latter is rapidly growing, because it is a friendlier language. Yes, a newcomer to programming won't know enough low level details to create the most efficient software, but that applies equally to C++ and Rust. But a Rust novice has a much better chance of writing a performant piece of software that doesn't blow up in production than a C++ novice.

> This causes them to write off C++ which I think is a huge mistake because it’s actually one of the best languages for new developers to learn.

I might be missing something, but I don't see any argument in the article that supports this claim. It only mentions that C++ is well-paid.