Pardon my ignorance, both about the history of computing and about Rust, but weren't the "new" keyword, and the term "instance" introduced in object-oriented languages? If yes, isn't it deceptive then that Rust has the "new" method, and that the Rust book describes it as creating an instance?
> If yes, isn't it deceptive then that Rust has the "new" method, and that the Rust book describes it as creating an instance?
What's "deceptive" about anything here?
The name "new" has no special meaning in Rust. It's conventionally used to denote a method that creates a new instance of a struct, but there's absolutely nothing in the language itself that forces you to use that (or a similar) name.
I don't think object-oriented languages have exclusive rights to the word "instance", either? It's a pretty natural word to use in that context, and it's been used like that for a long time. For example, from K&R C second edition:
> If the declaration is tagged, however, the tag can be used later in definitions of instances of the structure.
Or
> Therefore, it is impossible to declare a structure or union containing an instance of itself.