RFC in Comparison between Rust, D and Go

[Marc Schütz via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 21:01:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 11/09/2015 09:13 AM, Nordlöw wrote:
>> Yet another shallow language comparison that needs to be 
>> corrected:
>>
>> https://www.quora.com/Which-language-has-the-brightest-future-in-replacement-of-C-between-D-Go-and-Rust-And-Why/answer/Matej-%C4%BDach?srid=itC4&share=1
>
> My response: https://goo.gl/VTEYFk -- Andrei

I agree with your assessments in general, though I'd like to 
point out that your criticism of the heavy-weight type system is 
a bit misguided. While it is indeed complex, its use cases are by 
no means limited to memory management, or even resource 
management in the narrow sense (i.e. when can a particular 
resource be released). It's also used for safe sharing of 
resources across threads without data races, for preventing 
iteration invalidation (which means more than just avoiding 
dangling pointers), as well as for many other ways to make the 
compiler check certain aspects of a program's correctness. These 
wide applications make the cost/benefit ratio considerably more 
favourable.