I'm aware of algorithms and espouse them, but you're not comparing apples to apples. The example is about mutating a collection while iterating over it:

  for(std::vector<int>::const_iterator it=v.begin(); it!=v.end(); ++it) {
      if (*it < 5)
          v.push_back(5-*it);
  }

...you could do that with std::for_each and a lambda, or maybe some creative use of std::back_inserter, but you'd still have iterator invalidation problems.

The right way to do it might be to use a while loop that uses std::find_if to find the next value to insert, but I'm not sure how you'd arrive at that solution without thinking about iterator invalidation in the first place.

...and the point is that Rust effectively says "you can't iterate over a mutable collection like that" while a less battle-scarred C++ developer might not even notice the problem before deploying to production.