> How about get an actual published language standard? How about get more implementations of it? How about fix the utter mess that is cargo?
I think these arguably also warrant a "is this putting the cart before the horse?" analysis. I think the value of all of those are pretty debatable (especially in different fields), and I don't think it's at all obvious that Rust would have done any better had it devoted more energy to those earlier in its life.
Also, I think that the article is technically compatible with working on those points anyways?
> Let's replace everything else.
I don't think that's what the article is trying to say? "Targeting" here seems to be more in the vein of "usable for", like "target" in "this language targets this use case".
I think these arguably also warrant a "is this putting the cart before the horse?" analysis. I think the value of all of those are pretty debatable (especially in different fields), and I don't think it's at all obvious that Rust would have done any better had it devoted more energy to those earlier in its life.
Also, I think that the article is technically compatible with working on those points anyways?
> Let's replace everything else.
I don't think that's what the article is trying to say? "Targeting" here seems to be more in the vein of "usable for", like "target" in "this language targets this use case".