I've noticed that when somebody says they like a growing language (Rust, Zig, ...) for this or that feature, people often come out of the woodwork to claim that it isn't unique, that some research project did it 5 years ago, etc. etc.
First, that's not even what they were saying. They like a feature of the language, they weren't making a claim about the novelty of it.
Second, even if they did erroneously make a claim about the feature's novelty, I think the theory type of people dismiss these sorts of languages too readily. Yes, somebody did it before. But it is usually very hard to bring these features into the mainstream or even adjacent to it.
It's just annoying when we're appreciating a language and the work that went into it and somebody pops their head in and says "Ackshually, Joe Gringoff published a paper in '95 detailing that exact thing, so it isn't anything new." Like I'm trying to enjoy "Samson and Delilah", I'm not really thinking about who did that kind of lighting first, so why are you using the lack of novelty to diminish the effort put into the lighting? If you want to say, "Fun fact, Giorno Capucelli was the first one to popularize that kind of lighting!" Then that's cool, but instead these people always use these facts to diminish something else instead of enhancing it. Just let me enjoy their handiwork!