OP was specifically recommending operator overloading on a plain old struct, which can be done without declaring a class. Indeed, operator overloads can be declared as global functions in C++. The this pointer doesn't enter in to it at all in that case.
The only "downgrade" I made was saying that it is only "almost" the default in C++, versus the other two where they are completely the default.
To be clear, like C and Rust, C++ has great semantic attributes for this sort of thing:
- classes/structs that don't require allocation/pointers
- precise control over pass-by-value (for everything except the `this` pointer of methods)
- pervasive static dispatch of methods/functions (including operators, which can be considered to be method/function with an unusual name and call syntax)
The only downside, and the reason I said "almost" (which is what the C++ETF (C++ Evangelism Task Force) seems to be up in arms about), is methods are what most people reach for by default and so the `this` pointer comes into play. But as you point out, and as I implied in my original comment, this isn't required, just the default.
(Also, Rust has pretty transparent support in the same manner also without OO overhead, but differs slightly because methods can and often do use pass-by-value. This is the distinction I was drawing.)