> 1. A language that has an optional GC and a borrow-checker is better than a language that only has a GC or borrow-checker. Disagree. It is worse to have two

> 1. A language that has an optional GC and a borrow-checker is better than a language that only has a GC or borrow-checker. Disagree. It is worse to have two worlds that are poorly integrated with one another. Dividing the ecosystem in two would be a terrible idea. > If GNAT can do it, why can't the Rust team not do it? Because Ada isn't Rust? It's not that we can't do it. It's that typechecking complexity has a cost, and Rust is already operating at near maximum feasible typechecking complexity. > 3. A language that has full support for OOP including inheritance and traits (or mixins) is better than a language that has less of these features. No. Not every language needs to have every feature. Every feature has a cost. Not enough people are asking for inheritance to justify its cost at this time.