3 ms·
> than if you were using the equivalent tooling for Pascal, C, or Zig. I think GP is talking about not-directly-related-to-safety things like sum types/pattern
by aw1621107 6mo ago
> than if you were using the equivalent tooling for Pascal, C, or Zig.
I think GP is talking about not-directly-related-to-safety things like sum types/pattern matching/traits/expressive type systems/etc. given the end of that paragraph. I don't think you can get "equivalent tooling" for such things the languages you list without raising interesting questions about what actually counts as Pascal/C/Zig.
- cxr 6mo agoI know what they were talking about. It was clearly intended to be a cheerfest for Rust. > I don't think you can get "equivalent tooling" for such things the languages you list without raising interesting questions about what actually counts as Pascal/C/Zig. I said builds. All of the languages I mentioned have "equivalent tooling" for that (i.e. compilers—to produce builds for the programs you choose to write in those languages).
- aw1621107 6mo ago> I said builds. All of the languages I mentioned have "equivalent tooling" for that (i.e. compilers—to produce builds for the programs you choose to write in those languages). Oh, my mistake. Given the context I thought you were talking about some hypothetical tooling that gave you something approaching Rust's feature set.