My opinion is that Rust is at least as complicated as C++. They have different complexities, but one isn't "easier" than the other. I enjoy Rust a lot. More than C++, at this point, but that may be the "newness" factor creating bias. I think Rust is likely a better language for people new to systems programming to pick up. It's complexities are largely up-front: a novice will learn how to program well in Rust by having the compiler break his teeth a few times, while for C++ she'd either have to have high-quality mentoring or else learn the hard way (by long experience).
C++ dev here. Rust's borrow checking system is crazy and even after a week of trying I couldn't understand it in a way that I could reliably use the language.
In C++ everything is fairly straight forward and well documented, in Rust it feels like I'm inserting random symbols in hopes that something will compile. The syntax is verbose and ugly, maybe not as bad as C++ template code can get sometimes, but it's nasty in its own right.
I want to like Rust, I really do, but this just really turned me off it.
This is a rosy-eyed view of C++ if I ever saw one. C++ has a lot of accidental complexity from layers and layers of features and backwards compatibility concerns: maybe some of the features are "straight forward" in isolation, but its interactions with the rest of the language rarely are.
C++ is deceptive, in that the compiler barely keeps track of anything for the programmer, so there are many cases when code should have "random symbols" (or something equivalent) added, but isn't, just being broken instead. The Rust compiler front-loads this: trying to turn runtime brokenness into compile-time errors, which does make it annoying to get code that runs, but it makes it less annoying to get code that actually works correctly.
Wow! C++ is full of undocumented and documented, but non-obvious, behavior. I guess that speaks volumes about your experience with C++: given enough time, anything is straightforward.
Rust has a steep learning curve (I'm still climbing it), but it is nowhere even close to C++. C++ gives you a false sense of security, in the sense that code will often compile, but be obviously wrong (for someone knowledgeable). The Rust compiler will not stop complaining until you correct your program.
It's even worse for beginners. Rust learners will get frustrated because their programs are not compiling. C++ learners will get frustrated because their programs will segfault. Often because of some obscure issue, such as someone who forgot to implement copy constructors or assignment operators. I've been there, these issues are completely non-trivial to debug.
I would rather have a compiler yelling at me, but that's me.
Also, since you mentioned that you've been trying for a week: do you think a novice C++ programmer would be able to actually do anything coherent in C++ after a week? Heck, I don't think that's enough time to even go through the spec!
I as Java developer had some hurdles, but most of the time, me and borrow checker get along. My greatest improvement came from compiler lifetime elison in one of the pre-1.0 versions of Rust.
As for syntax being ugly, I do somewhat agree, but mostly, when it reminds me of C++ (e.g. T<U<Vec<u8>>>). I hate tire-tracks and Type::static_method() definitions.