>so, using python as an example isn't very convincing to me.
That's because you're focusing on precisely the points where Rust has done better than Python, and conspicuously glossing over Python's asyncio debacle ... which looks exactly like Rust's.
In a nutshell, it works like this:
1. New syntax is introduced
2. We are told it's optional
3. The ecosystem adopts it, and it be comes de facto required
So right back at ya -- I am not convinced in the least by Rust's argumentation ;)
It's unclear to me how leadership can fix this. The cat is out of the bag, and the language must now contend with a second-order embedded syntax. Avoiding this becomes increasingly difficult as it is adopted in the ecosystem; just ask the C++ guys how they feel about exceptions.
That's because you're focusing on precisely the points where Rust has done better than Python, and conspicuously glossing over Python's asyncio debacle ... which looks exactly like Rust's.
In a nutshell, it works like this:
1. New syntax is introduced
2. We are told it's optional
3. The ecosystem adopts it, and it be comes de facto required
So right back at ya -- I am not convinced in the least by Rust's argumentation ;)
It's unclear to me how leadership can fix this. The cat is out of the bag, and the language must now contend with a second-order embedded syntax. Avoiding this becomes increasingly difficult as it is adopted in the ecosystem; just ask the C++ guys how they feel about exceptions.