> think it's neither false nor inflammatory, but a neutral, objective observation.
I think we're going to disagree on that take, but you're not wrong that in terms of language syntax, it's often compared to C++.
> Why unnecessarily?
You're correct, much of this is personal taste and preference, "unnecessarily" is probably the wrong word I was reaching for. But there are many who quickly move on from languages at even the slightest discomfort.
> you asked why some might not see Rust as the answer to their wishes, and I answered.
Yes, I did. I'm trying to understand the difference between language features and capabilities vs. language preferences and personal taste.
It is of course valid to state that one language isn't to your taste, but I often see that interlaced with statements that imply that the language isn't capable because of those personal tastes.
It's the features and capabilities I'm more interested in, less the personal preference.
Well, a simple language has some capabilities that are important in the embedded space that a complex language lacks, like the ability to quickly write compilers and to do both formal and informal analyses. It can also be learned more quickly, which is very important for adoption. I don't think that any of those is an immediate deal-breaker (Ada has had some small success in the embedded space despite being complex), but some preferences tend to be more common in some industry niches.
BTW, I'm not disappointed with Rust for some "slight discomfort," but because it doesn't even begin to address my main discomfort with C++. Rust isn't my cup-of-tea for the same reason C++ isn't (and I program C++ all day, every day).
I think we're going to disagree on that take, but you're not wrong that in terms of language syntax, it's often compared to C++.
> Why unnecessarily?
You're correct, much of this is personal taste and preference, "unnecessarily" is probably the wrong word I was reaching for. But there are many who quickly move on from languages at even the slightest discomfort.
> you asked why some might not see Rust as the answer to their wishes, and I answered.
Yes, I did. I'm trying to understand the difference between language features and capabilities vs. language preferences and personal taste.
It is of course valid to state that one language isn't to your taste, but I often see that interlaced with statements that imply that the language isn't capable because of those personal tastes.
It's the features and capabilities I'm more interested in, less the personal preference.