I don't know anything about Rust itself but I find it amusing that the author thought that six months should have been more than enough time for the community to agree on and implement a nontrivial change in how the language works.
"Right, so they've been working on this potential change since 2016, and...wait. 2016?!"
If he'd said 2014 or earlier, I'd consider him to have a point. 2015 is asking for a bit too much, but I can still see his frustration; I'd call that a wash. But 2016? It destroyed his credibility with me, because it's clear he has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to developing a programming language.
I know that sounds harsh but...man. He's leaving Rust because they're taking more than six months to implement a massive change to a core language mechanic? Have fun working with absolutely any other language ever.
Reads to me like he is disappointed that they didn't start the process sooner and have just recently started to discuss a solution.
It hasn't languished, it's not just a bunch of +1s met with developer silence. What precisely is the author expecting the Rust team to do better on here?
Not that it's a bad thing but if he does programming as a hobby it means that he only used it a few hours a day for 6 months.
I don't quite understand why HackerNews gave so much importance to some random developer opinion on Rust.
> Rust's ecosystem, since Rust itself is reasonably young, is still in a developing stage.
> What I didn't know though, was that when you hit a road-block, finding a solution feels like navigating a jungle.
Living on the edge always has a price
I might be wrong but judging from this, I felt like we might never reach a conclusion on this topic even in a considerably long enough time, since it did seem to me that the core team is not interested in this feature.
From this point of view, I don't think it matters too much when we debate if six month is long enough, even if we waited longer, I'm not sure if the situation is gonna change when interest in this feature stays low.
> it did seem to me that the core team is not interested in this feature.
To re-phrase someone from the Reddit, you can't win: if we don't add new features but fix bugs, people claim that you ignore feature work, but if you add tons of new features, people wonder why you're bothering to add new features when there's lots of bugs open. It's tough.