I still chuckle when randos make arguments like "C++ can't be parsed with an LALR parser", or "virtual functions are more expensive than function pointers", as if the former is the end of the world, and the latter is a checkmate that will suddenly make my knees week, arms heavy. There's code in my editor, and it's just spaghetti.
I'm not an expert on parsers but I don't think LALR parser can evaluate constexpr C++ functions which is required for parsing C++.
E.g. in the following code, expression `A<f()>::a * u` will parse either as a variable declaration (int* u) or a multiplication (5 * 5) depending on the value returned by constexpr function f:
template<bool b> class A {};
template<> struct A<true> { typedef int a; };
template<> struct A<false> { static const int a = 5; };
constexpr bool f() { return true; }
const int u = 5;
int main() { A<f()>::a * u; }
But we have both, and most of the folks doing comparisons with C++ do tend to be actual C++ devs (because if you're coming from Python or Ruby and haven't done C++ you really ... can't? compare with C++?). At least within the community folks pretty strongly care about misrepresenting other languages so if stuff is inaccurate it gets called out; and for most "rust vs foo" blog posts I've only rarely seen glaring mistakes a few times. Small mistakes are common but those are common to any kind of post.
I took the comment in the post as a bit of hyperbole and probably referring to subjective bits that Rust+C++ & only-C++ programmers tend to disagree on.
In general most of the vocal Rust folks who talk about C++ talk about C++ because they have lived it.
shrug