ah, the classic Rust RFC response "I like this feature so much I'd like to RFC it myself, approx. a century later"https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1808#issuecomment-269585925 …
-
-
Replying to @whitequark
I have no intention of writing an alternative myself. There is a huge burden in review, implementation, and maintenance for new
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @nick_r_cameron @whitequark
features and we have to prioritise. The number of half finished features in Rust worries me far more than the pace of adopting
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @whitequark @nick_r_cameron
what worries me is that Rust is still barely usable on embedded and with this roadmap it will stay that way for years.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @whitequark
I share this concern. I have pushed for more focus on this kind of low level application, but hard to find things we would lower
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
-
Replying to @whitequark @nick_r_cameron
Also, not to be unfriendly, but IMO it was obvious from the start that this RFC's design wouldn't get accepted.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BRIAN_____ @nick_r_cameron
no. it wasn't obvious. and you sound pretty elitist.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Maybe not "obvious," but I could see that this isn't the level of abstraction that the language team aims for.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.