The point is that these ideas are not "weird"—they're just decisions taken straight from other languages.
I can't believe we have to defend closures, of all things, from the charge of being "weird" because a language from the 1970s didn't have them, but here we are.
> Sometimes I think CRust would be a good idea, the minimal ideas that I like from Rust just layered on top of C as a linter.
That is not possible. You can't just graft the borrow check from one language onto another language that was not designed for it. For example, C doesn't even have generics, and the lifetime system is designed around generics.
Honestly, I'm tired of responding over and over to the suggestion that we should have done Rust as a static analysis on C++. If you actually try to design such a system, it becomes obvious very quickly that it cannot work for systematic reasons.
Rust is a systems programming language that runs blazingly fast,
prevents segfaults, and guarantees thread safety.
Us systems programmer types, we tend to drag our knuckles a lot. Still we do have opposable thumbs for grasping tools and we're damned proud of that. Perhaps if and when we sufficiently evolve and attain an upright, high level posture we'll see the light. But for now, be happy that we're trainable if not educable.
Now please excuse me, but I have to go pick some low hanging fruit. That and worse is a lot better.
Sometimes I think CRust would be a good idea, the minimal ideas that I like from Rust just layered on top of C as a linter.