DonFromWyoming

No. The headline is truthful. I subscribed to SA for 50+ years, saving old copies. About 15 years ago I got sick of the bias and threw out all the old issues. It ceased being science, instead it had become propaganda.

Steve - did you read the FAQ? They really don't know what direction to go. At least Swift stuck with ARC, being a necessity as they were tasked with merging Swift with the Objective-C runtime for interoperability. Rust's multiple methods of memory management makes it strange, at best, for programmers to decide how to build a program or an API. Are the owners of Rust planning on adding a GC? Really?

Go is unsuitable as a replacement for C because it is garbage collected. End of discussion.

Rust is unsuitable as a replacement for C because its memory management is poorly thought out (ie. its a joke). Here's the relevant paragraphs from the Rust FAQ. Really?

"Rust avoids the need for GC through its system of ownership and borrowing, but that same system helps with a host of other problems, including resource management in general and concurrency.

For when single ownership does not suffice, Rust programs rely on the standard reference-counting smart pointer type, Rc, and its thread-safe counterpart, Arc, instead of GC.

We are however investigating optional garbage collection as a future extension. The goal is to enable smooth integration with garbage-collected runtimes, such as those offered by the Spidermonkey and V8 JavaScript engines. Finally, some people have investigated implementing pure Rust garbage collectors without compiler support."

For the simple case with a single iterator, yes the C-style for loop isn't as concise. However, there are lots of real-world situations where there is not a single iterator (e.g. looping through 2 arrays). Having to go back to 'while(boolean) { }' loops with initializers outside of the loop and incrementors at strange places inside the loop is much more confusing and error prone.

The removal of prefix and postfix ++ and -- operators and the removal of C-style for loops are mistakes, IMO.

It's called socialism folks. Government ownership of the means of production. Full stop.