Am I the only one who saw this syntax and immediately though "Man, this looks almost identical to Rust with a few slight variations"?
It looks like a fun project, but I'm not sure what this adds to the point where people would actually use it over C or just going to Rust.
I guess the point is what is subtracts, instead - answer being the borrow-checker.
There is an entire world in Rust where you never have to touch the borrow-checker or lifetimes at all. You can just clone or move everything, or put everything in an Arc (which is what most other languages are doing anyway). It's very easy to not fight the compiler if you don't want to.
Maybe the real fix for Rust (for people that don't want to care), is just a compiler mode where everything is Arc-by-default?
Borrow checking in Rust isn't sound AFAIK, even after all these years, so some of the problems with designing and implementing lifetimes, region checking, and borrow checking algorithms, aren't trivial.
Huh? If borrow checking in Rust is unsound, that's akin to saying Rust is utterly broken. Sounds like you've been fed FUD.
If Rust was that unsound, Rust haters would flood Twitter with Rust L takes.
The premise is too ridiculous to engage seriously. Apparently Google/AWS/MSFT/C++ engineers all missed a huge gaping hole in Rust borrow checker, something that random commenter could pick up.