I think very few (serious) people will argue that Rust has replaced C++ and C in real-world codebases. Rust hasn't had enough time to get the same traction as C++, so it stands to reason that the demand is still for C++.
That being said, I've definitely seen Rust in production and even have close friends who are paid fulltime to work on it. If you can find an employer with the demands for it, Rust can be equally as lucrative as C++. Purely from a market demand perspective, there's ample reason to learn both.
Going forward though, I think you're going to see less people starting new projects in C and C++. Clang and g++ are both less intuitive than Cargo and rustc (imo). Dependency management is far and away better with Rust, and I'd argue it's a lot harder to fall into design antipatterns using it's defaults. If you're a new programmer that wants to leverage a compiled language, the on-ramp to Rust is simpler.
Comments
I think very few (serious) people will argue that Rust has replaced C++ and C in real-world codebases. Rust hasn't had enough time to get the same traction as C++, so it stands to reason that the demand is still for C++.
That being said, I've definitely seen Rust in production and even have close friends who are paid fulltime to work on it. If you can find an employer with the demands for it, Rust can be equally as lucrative as C++. Purely from a market demand perspective, there's ample reason to learn both.
Going forward though, I think you're going to see less people starting new projects in C and C++. Clang and g++ are both less intuitive than Cargo and rustc (imo). Dependency management is far and away better with Rust, and I'd argue it's a lot harder to fall into design antipatterns using it's defaults. If you're a new programmer that wants to leverage a compiled language, the on-ramp to Rust is simpler.