> The same goes for Rust, probably.
Well, at least you have the good grace to admit that you haven't used Rust. :P
Well, at least you have the good grace to admit that you haven't used Rust. :P
What a snarky reply from someone who already knows that Rust is not simple. The person you replied to was right, and yet you cast doubt on what he guessed to be true.
> This just means that the Rust language does not have the feature of being simple.
I really don't know what it means for a language to be sane, so it didn't make any sense to me that you were replying to that part. My bad.