Spotted on twitter: Rust user enthusiastically blogs about moving to D

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 18:49:15 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 18:19:47 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 7 March 2017 at 17:59:28 UTC, Meta wrote:
>>> What exactly are we talking about here? The array stomping 
>>> protection stuff?
>>
>> Lack of static guarantees on the underlying array buffer.
>
> Like with pointers, ownership doesn't have to be encoded in the 
> type this way.

One can always work around misguided high level features with 
abstractions, but it doesn't scale well when features that lead 
to inconsistency is part of the core language. But in comparison 
to Go one does at least have the ability to abstract.

I still find it odd that people downplay the value of static 
guarantees in the core language. I am likewise puzzled by the 
dynamic choices in Golang, but to their credit they decided to 
focus on evolving the runtime.

I think Rust made a lot of the right choices, except they didn't 
go far enough to fully reap the benefits.