> It implies completely lack of knowledge that something like that already exists, predating Rust by a few decades. I don't understand why you think this: we e

> It implies completely lack of knowledge that something like that already exists, predating Rust by a few decades. I don't understand why you think this: we explain things all the time without presuming that the particular choice of explanation implies ignorance of a preceding concept. In high school physics, for example, you wouldn't assume that your teacher doesn't know who Ptolemy is because they start with Newton. The value of an explanation is in its effectiveness, not a pedantic lineage of the underlying concept. The latter is interesting, at least to me, but I'm not going to bore my readers by walking them through 65 years of language evolution just to get back to the same basic concept that they're able to intuit immediately from a ~6 line code snippet. (It's also condescending to do so: there's no evidence whatsoever that Rust's creators, maintainers, community, etc. aren't familiar with the history of PL development.)