From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article ,   
   c186282   wrote:   
   >On 3/10/25 12:42 PM, Richard Harnden wrote:   
   >> On 10/03/2025 14:14, Tim Rentsch wrote:   
   >>> cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:   
   >>>   
   >>>> [Note:  Followup-To: set to news.groups.proposals]   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I'd like to open informal discussion around possibly creating a   
   >>>> new newsgroup, comp.lang.rust, for discussion of the Rust   
   >>>> programming language (https://rust-lang.org/).  Rust is a   
   >>>> compiled, type- and memory- safe language that has been in open   
   >>>> development since 2010, and is rapidly gaining adoption in   
   >>>> industry and research.  It often comes up in discussions related   
   >>>> to C and C++, but no existing group is dedicated to it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Thoughts?   
   >>>   
   >>> I am in favor of creating comp.lang.rust, and hereby   
   >>> officially give Dan Cross my proxy in any voting.   
   >>>   
   >>> If comp.lang.rust is created, I expect I will at least   
   >>> try reading it for a while.  I have had a longstanding   
   >>> interest in learning rust, and have been frustated by   
   >>> how horrible the existing explanatory materials are.   
   >>   
   >> There is an alt.comp.lang.rust - but it has very little traffic -   
   >> comp.lang.rust would be better.   
      
   I need to get off my bum and follow up here.  The response   
   showed sufficient interest to warrant moving further in the   
   process, I've just had very little time to do so.   
      
   >   There is nothing WRONG with Rust. You can build   
   >   big/complex programs using it.   
   >   
   >   However it STILL stinks of Yet Another 'C' Replacement.   
   >   Same capability, but with much more annoying syntax.   
   >   
   >   CLUE guys - make it EASIER, not WEIRDER.   
   >   
   >   Rust DOES enforce some 'safety' stuff - but if you're   
   >   a half-assed 'C' programmer you already DO all that.   
      
   50 years of empirical evidence has shown that, sadly, this is   
   just not true.  Even our best and brightest C programmers still   
   regularly make mistakes that simply impossible to represent in   
   Rust, along with other languages.   
      
   There's a reason that new languages keep appearing to address   
   these issues, and it's not just hubris on the part of the   
   designers, or a desire to be different for the sake of being   
   different.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)