That's a pretty shallow argument, one that can literally be re-used verbatim to argue for any and every feature/philosophy. Particularly when "happy" is as subj

That's a pretty shallow argument, one that can literally be re-used verbatim to argue for any and every feature/philosophy. Particularly when "happy" is as subjective as this. It also ignores the reality that the Rust team's time is finite, and if they invest it into three or more assembly parsers then they aren't investing it into other areas of the language that could also be productivity multipliers. Areas that more programmers actually use. Ultimately how much is unsafe assembly in Rust going to be used? And how large are those code sections? And are you better off creating Assembly in existing dedicated tooling and importing it, even if Rust had native parsers (e.g. due to better debugging/visualization elsewhere)? Honestly if Rust code outside of standard libraries ends up with a ton of assembly anyway then that's a weakness of Rust. You should be using as little as possible. Even unsafe Rust is superior to assembly because it is platform agnostic. I'd go as far as to call it a "last resort."