I've been programming in rust since 2016. The number of times I thought "man, having function overloading would be really nice" can be counted on the fingers of one hand. If you have a case where you need overloading and the code looks more readable with overloading, you're welcome to discuss it on the language design forum.

> One I ran into tonight is that there's no such thing as a constructor The problem you're describing is not the absence of a constructor but the absence of function overloading. Rust doesn't have constructors, because there's no need for a constructor as a separate function. That said, rust differentiates between function identifiers and struct identifiers, so you can create a function with the same name as the struct and call it. It will look just like a constructor in C++. The reason rust doesn't have overloading is explained here.

>If your girlfriend/mother/sister non technically competent relationship person has to use the machine, Windows. My mom used windows xp on her computer, then I got her switched to Ubuntu, and then someone else switched her to windows 7. She complained about ubuntu being different for a week. She complains about windows 7 for several months now. > everything is better than emacs, even notepad Come on now! You can't seriously expect a window system to have features of a text editor. :) > From a fresh install, it takes about 3 days to get a Windows box the way I like it. As I said earlier, I've been working on my Linux environment for 14 years and I'm still improving it! Tried to "emerge world"? :)

A virus for Linux is a lot harder to write than it was for Windows XP. Because the practise of running as root (administrator) is discouraged. Windows Vista and later doesn't allow one to run everything with administrator priviledges now either so they've caught up. Of course Linux now has MAC and windows doesn't to my knowledge. So again if you want to make a system more secure you can implement MAC rules for common programs so that vulnerabilities in them did not allow the attacker to gain more priviledges than that program needs to be operational. One of the newer Linux distros that is specifically focused on security runs every application in it's own VM (thus every app runs in an isolated environment) - another thing not possible with Windows. Most of the programs you install on Linux you install from a software repository. So technically Linux is still more secure, but it's not that obvious anymore. A more prominent thing (and Windows is catching up here too) is the App Store. That is, all programs being installed from a trusted source. This feature has been available on Linux for ages now. Linux also needs less hacks because of its initial design philosophy being inherited from UNIX and its policies (e.g. the UAC is a hack). And because of that it needs less resources to run. It's not all great though. Linux is not supported by as many device manufacturers as Windows, thus a lot less drivers for it. Less games too. Some obscure software you might not find for it that exists on Windows, most of the software that you use can be replaced with open source alternatives, but you need to relearn to use it and most people don't like to do that. Some proprietary formats are not supported well either (understandable I'd say)