> all of the programs studied were written in C or C++, and that this study predates C++11. Moving to C++11 and using atomics and scoped locks would probably change the numbers substantially

I keep seeing this claim, "C++ is better now!" Does anyone have any experience that really defends this claim?

One of the reasons that I've become so enthralled with Rust is that it's adopted a memory access system which aligns with everything that I've learned over my career in distributed systems:

-all data const/final by default -No nulls, fully initialized structs -semantics that require the developer to adopt good practices in accessing memory across threads

I can go on, but it's already obvious to me that Rust is a huge leap forward in terms of threading and the guarantees it makes.

I left C++ a long time ago, and it happened to coincide with a atomic increment bug/memory leak that took me 2 weeks to track down in the STL String library. This was back in 2000, early days of multiprocessor x86. This exact thing is solvable with the new C++ atomic support, but does it guarantee that you'll use it across threads like Rust?