I'd be a little interested to hear what you like about C++'s syntax! As a non-C++ programmer, I mostly think of the language as a pile of mistakes that kinda had to happen for other languages to learn from them, very much including syntax (ex. types preceding declarations, necessitating `auto` and complicating parsing) - and I actually think the ugliest parts of Rust copy those mistakes (ex. using <> for generics, which are ambiguous with less-than greater-than when used with no whitespace, necessitating the turbofish).
(I've heard plenty of complains about Rust syntax, so I'm less so interested in that than what C++ syntax gets right. Unless it's just a familiarity thing...)
It's pretty much familiarity. If I'd learned Rust back in the day, I'd probably not want to learn C++ for syntax reasons as well.
One thing I think Rust gets wrong is classes. I absolutely don't understand why you would require a separate `impl` block to provide methods. C++ has a reasonable syntax of providing methods in the class.
Well, they're not classes, they're interfaces, and so you can implement multiple interfaces for multiple types, and so you have to implement them separately from the type declaration. There's not too much of a way around that, I think.
(I've heard plenty of complains about Rust syntax, so I'm less so interested in that than what C++ syntax gets right. Unless it's just a familiarity thing...)