As someone also working on a minimal programming language, I might share some of the values, but using Go as an implementation language is an immediate turnoff.
Also, not having a single code example on the linked page is super-annoying.
People need to stop that.
Incorrect.
Rust is not a functional, let alone functional-first language.
Your opinion is unpopular, because it is wrong.
No normal person would think of C when told to imagine a language that is not bloated and not unnecessarily complex.
And all of this due to the mistaken design decision to stick with the obsolete readiness-based model instead of going with the superior completion-based model.
(You can build a readiness-based API on top of a completion-based API, but not the other way around.)
What a confused post.
There is not much to learn, so just do it? It's not a relevant investment that would require much thought.
Yeah, avoids pointless debates whether they should be lined up in matches or not. :-)
Many languages' Option and Result types suffer from an organically-grown and therefore inconsistently named set of functions that operate on them.
We can do better! The article demonstrates how a full set of useful methods with predictable names can be derived from few, simple rules.
Absolutely delusional.
code that is readable, auditable, and easy to port
Yeah C is the language that comes to everybody's mind reading that. /s
C's simplicity ...
Is that simplicity currently in the room with us?
... and widespread adoption make it the best choice for this philosophy.
Ah, the asbestos argument.
If people want to run the latest kernels on hardware that isn't maintained anymore, they need to toughen up and send patches ...
... or they stick to an old kernel for their unmaintained hardware.
Both is fine to me, but that entitled Boomer attitude of "nobody should have nice things, because that would challenge status quo" needs to die.
Perhaps, the linked page just does a poor job of selling that.