Interesting response. I'm as curious as anyone else as to how Yao will improve upon Rust, but here is what I've observed from following several (relatively) recently created languages (Julia, Nim, Mojo, JAX):

* Language creators start with high hopes and big promises. "We've learned from the past! This will solve all the problems of previous X,Y,Z languages! It will be so much easier to use!"

* The language begins to be designed, implemented, and developed. Problems arise. Tradeoffs must be made. Invariably, the new language develops its own set of limitations, shortcomings, and weaknesses. These are inevitable with any new programming language.

* Ultimately the language either finds a userbase who are willing to overlook or work around the limitations and pitfalls, or it fades away.

* If it remains, eventually another new language arises saying "We've learned from the past! This will solve all the problems of previous X,Y,Z languages! It will be so much easier to use!" And the cycle repeats.

Now, is this a bad thing? I would argue no, not necessarily. Every time a new language is created, our vision of what is possible is expanded. We learn new lessons about what works and what doesn't work in programming languages.

So in short I'm looking forward to see how the state of the art is advanced by Yao. If it gets to a decent working state, I might even try it out if I have time. However, in light of the above statements forgive me for being skeptical of the following claim from Yao's website [1]:

> As powerful as C, As flexible as Lisp, As easy as Python, As provable as Ada/SPARK, More reliable than Rust, With the time semantics of HAL/S.

[1]: https://git.yzena.com/Yzena/Yc/src/branch/master/docs/yao/ma...