I think you have an inconsistent threshold for civility. The post I replied to had it's fair share of snarkiness, insincerity, exaggerations, and patronizing.
> Couldn't find one thing that could be simpler, eh? I think you just said you wouldn't admit you're wrong under any circumstances.
I'll happily acknowledge being wrong. Please point out how any of the features you mentioned could be simplified or removed without compromising on safety.
> You can call that 6 to 3 if you want, but it seems pretty neck and neck....
In any case, this is the problem with benchmarks--even with hard numbers we won't agree on who's winning because everything is up for argument.
> Swift and Rust use the same code generator. Rust is riding on LLVM's coat tails.
The code generator backend (LLVM) is not the same thing as the compiler frontend (lexer, parser, typechecker, AST tree shaker, etc.). I am specifically referring to the Swift compiler frontend. If you don't believe me, here's a dedicated repo for tracking Swift compiler crashes: https://github.com/practicalswift/swift-compiler-crashes
> Most programmers don't have the discipline to keep their programs simple. So yes, I'm lucky to be in a place where lines of code is considered a cost instead of a benefit.
I think we're talking about different things here. I'm visualising long-running software that drives automation of your systems. You're talking about quick jobs that do some task and then exit.
> ... we ... tend to use multiple processes instead of multiple threads. This scales very easily across a cluster of computers, something Rust won't do for you.
I mean, which language does scale multiple processes across clusters easily for you? I'm very curious to find out.
> Go ahead and have the last word if you like - I won't reply. I've clearly made you defensive, and I don't think this discussion is likely to turn friendly again.
If you won't engage in discussion, then how am I the defensive one?
