Taking your message in good faith: I won't deny it's pattern matching, but it has less to do with what C did, and more with what history has been. I've come to

Taking your message in good faith: I won't deny it's pattern matching, but it has less to do with what C did, and more with what history has been. I've come to distrust too much centralization on important things. Take Node.js as an example. It started controlled by a single company, then thanks to the community a Node.js Foundation was formed with an open governance model. But now that Node.js Foundation no longer exists, instead it's controlled by the OpenJS foundation, which is basically controlled by big corp. I don't want something similar to happen to Rust. That said, I don't mind Rust as it is today for user applications. And I happily use languages that have a BDFL, that are even less sound as Rust, so the problem is not Rust's success (this can't be denied). But I honestly think that if Rust wants to replace C (or even SPARK) on critical systems, and even make universities eager to teach it, it would be easier to play by the industry's rules, than to offer a "black box" ("what this compiler accepts"), for the lack of a better term. Also, as I pointed out in a different message (you might have missed it), I'm aware of gccrs, and I'm looking forward to it reaching feature parity with rustc; and I also appreciate the effort being put by the Ferrocene[1] people, because I think it with Rust getting wider adoption in the industry. [1]: https://github.com/ferrocene https://github.com/ferrocene