That preference to solve things in "the" library leads to other horrible problems though, where C++ ought to have a first class language feature, but instead WG21 has enshrined a workaround in the library which is probably better than if you'd made your own, but rather poor compared to a first class feature.
Take the array. Rather than provide a good array type in the actual language, C++ offers std::array, a library class in the standard library. But this standard library class isn't available in "freestanding" C++ while the builtin C-style array is available. So you end up with awkward syntax and the core language loses flexibility.
Likewise strings, in Rust the type of an arbitrary literal "Hacker News" is &'static str, a reference to an immutable view of this text which lives as long as necessary. In C++ the type of "Hacker News" is char*, a pointer to bytes. C++ 17 at last provided std::string_view which is the thing you actually wanted for about two decades, but the type of "Hacker News" isn't string_view it's still char*.
> In C++ the type of "Hacker News" is char *
Nope it is at least const char , and if you want to assign it to a variable it is:
const char * const hn = "Hacker News";
Much of the C++ standard library (including for example std::array) is not available in freestanding C++. Should it be? Perhaps. But it isn't.
In contrast to Rust's conscious decision to provide core, alloc and std as separate layers, in the C++ there's a rather ad hoc process to decide what's freestanding.
Err..string_view was available in Boost for quite a while actually - at-least for a decade as far as I remember, possibly more. There are so many missing features in Rust that are only available in crates even today: sane error handling for one/custom allocators for another, but god forbid if you criticise Rust on that basis. You will get downvoted to oblivion.
In fact it is not:
int main() {
auto&& x ="Hacker News";
x.foo();
}
They are an unstable type (an array) that, because of its C affinity, tends to quickly decay to pointers, hence the need to use ̵a̵ ̵p̵a̵r̵t̵i̵c̵l̵e̵ ̵a̵c̵c̵e̵l̵l̵e̵r̵a̵t̵o̵r̵ the universal reference to observe its fleeting lifetime.
edit: can't speak English
The main thrust of my point though is that this type is terrible - even before it decays, and you don't get a std::string_view which is what you probably actually ought to get in modern software.