> If he was, then why didn't he mention it? You seem to know what Stroustrup's inner thoughts are, so tell me, why didn't he mention it? As I say immediately a

> If he was, then why didn't he mention it? You seem to know what Stroustrup's inner thoughts are, so tell me, why didn't he mention it? As I say immediately afterwards, if he wasn't, he should've been. If Stroustrup thinks Rust is irrelevant to this conversation, he's simply mistaken. It's relevant for bringing memory safety into C++'s last remaining niche, after it's been chased out of most domains already. > Now, let me ask you: do you have an opinion about what Stroustrup wrote or are you just making sure no one says anything bad about [your_favorite_lang]. Let me answer you: Most of my post still works if you replace Rust with Java. That's why I conclude that the time for Stroustrup to start talking about adding memory safety to C++ is 1995, before Rust was even thought of. If you had read and understood my post, you would've realized it has way more to do with what Stroustrup wrote than Rust in particular. Rust didn't invent memory safety, and Rust didn't make C++ behind the times for not pursuing it. > You seem very upset that I asked such a simple question. You didn't ask a question. You made an objection. You started out with a false claim that the NSA document didn't mention Rust, and then you implied that since Stroustrup's document didn't mention Rust, it was inappropriate for me to mention Rust. That's absurd, because Rust is extremely relevant to this conversation, for reasons I explain in the post and here. It's also infuriating, because you're holding me to a standard that sounds like it should be reasonable, but in fact isn't -- this ludicrous idea that replies should be limited strictly to the original topics, even if they can explain why a new topic is relevant, as I do with Rust. So I'm explaining why it's not reasonable, so that the casual reader doesn't mistakenly get the impression that you had a good point. > very tangential discussions I've explained (1) why Rust is relevant and (2) why my post would be mostly relevant even if Rust didn't exist, so it's not tangential. > Or, in this case, I suspect to preach to the choir. I don't see why this is a bad thing, really. Sometimes, the choir wants someone to explain elegantly to them what they already knew, and help them solidify their thought processes.