> a complex compromise that is suboptimal for almost everything Whenever you have a programming language with multiple goals (or, let's say, more than two dist

> a complex compromise that is suboptimal for almost everything Whenever you have a programming language with multiple goals (or, let's say, more than two distinct goals) - it's almost certainly going to be suboptimal for any individual one of them. The questions are: * Whether choice of goals is worthy/reasonable; and * Whether a good balance and compromise has been struck by that language's specifiers and implementers. Also remember that languages evolve; and if one of the language goals is backwards compatibility (which is the case for C++, less so for Rust) - then part of the compromise is that they have to support multiple older and less-recommended idioms and facilities while offering newer, hopefully better ones.