Considering the lack of key C++ features (e.g. generics) in Hare and the lack of adoption, and most importantly the fact that you should use a memory-safe language like Rust instead of any memory-unsafe language like Hare or C++, there doesn't seem to be any practical use for the Hare language.
Will they pull it off? Languages need killer apps more than they need language features. So there's both a chance and work to do. Let's see.
For me, you know, I feel like this industry is soulless and dull enough; I don't need a boring programming language to top it off. If all I'm doing is helping someone get even richer, at least let me have some fun while doing so.
Not everyone needs a language filled with features and abstractions to have fun programming. Some people just enjoy making programs doing something more than playing with higher order functions, meta-programming, etc.
> Not everyone needs a language filled with features and abstractions to have
> fun programming.
Unfortunately, I don't get dopamine rushes ticking feature requests off. I stopped being excited about making a cube spin on the screen long ago, so it's no longer about the what but the how: I need to fix problems in creative, clever, and expressive ways.
So Hare is not for me, but it's great that it exists.
That isn't a fact and neither is something someone necessarily should. Not everything mandates memory safety.