That is my point, i think that prolog isn't just a simple tool to solve stuff, i think that it's potential can still be explored (even if, to be fair, Rust can run on a functional paradigm setting)
It was a whirlwind "survey of languages" course. After blowing our minds with functional programming via OCaml, the last segment was traditionally logical programming via Prolog. But he decided to spare us, I guess, and made me fall in love with Rust for a few years. :p (Or he sadistically meant to inflict the trauma of knowing how much better C and C++ could be but never will be, which stays with you even after you stop using Rust and return to those.)
The easiest answer: they should have a build and test and packaging system like Cargo built-in. The best you have is a tedious anarchy of third-party systems, of which CMake seems to have come out the winner. I use CMake, but it's no Cargo (as an understatement).
Borrowing and ownership is great for building safe code, whether it's single- or multi-threaded. In C, you have a nest of pointers, and a pointer communicates nothing about the ownership of its memory. Stuff can go, and leak, and dangle, everywhere. C++ mitigated this a little with references. Then it bolted on smart pointers, mitigating it further. Without learning Rust, though, I don't think I'd be as good of a C/C++ programmer because, unlike Rust, those languages don't force you to think about where memory lives and where it's going.
The module system is also way better.
Then I could take cheap shots: `u8` is way better than `uint8_t`. Rust had slices from the beginning, to be able to refer to parts of strings in a cheap way with easy syntax, whereas only C++17 introduced the comparatively awkward `std::string_view`.
There are ways I think Rust is worse though! The easiest is that it still doesn't have a standard and will probably not see the uniquely deep and broad support of C/C++ in my lifetime. :p
