If you take this argument seriously enough there's a level of specificity about the salient features of C (or any language) where you can say "nothing is a repl

If you take this argument seriously enough there's a level of specificity about the salient features of C (or any language) where you can say "nothing is a replacement for C, because it isn't C". Is C's degree of portability important for a C replacement? Depends on the project we're talking about and the platforms it needs to support. We can go down the line w/ these arguments (some of which like "concurrency is a bad thing" and "I don't care about safety" aren't even serious). I'm also surprised that in 2020 (or 2019 as this was written) we have engineers making a serious argument that specifications are inviolable laws. They do in fact help, but there are more considerations to make about a project's commitments to reasonable, expected behavior than just "there's a spec" (and in fact C has more guardrails supporting those commitments than a spec). I agree that there's a rust contingent that is over-eager to rewrite and may be oblivious to the concerns of a project or broader technical implications involved in pulling rust into a project. That being said, this reads more like a "get off my lawn", oblivious tirade about the "cult of the new" than a serious attempt to address these instances.