Rusts big advantage is that its memory safe

Most languages are memory safe. It's only really C, C++ and zig that are not (at least for more mainstream languages). Rust is special as it is memory safe without a garbage collector. Which is big for domains where the overhead of a GC is unacceptable.

I don't fully believe this is purely an AI agent. Not after the moltbot incident raised how many humans where responsible for the posts on it. It just seems to be an attempt to make LLMs seems more autonomous then they actually are. It may have been written by an LLM, but I bet it was directed by a human trying to stir up drama.

Only 40%? Would have thought it would be much higher. Don't more projects generally fail then that without being in a bubble?

Nobody sane uses vim as an IDE

Huh? Many people do this. With the right plugins and config it is just as capable as any IDE.

From their blog post:

Finally, subjectively, C++ isn’t drawing in the crowds. We have never had a lot of C++ contributors. Over the 11 years fish used C++, only 17 people have at least 10 commits to the C++ code. We also don’t know a lot of people who would love to work on a C++ codebase in their free time.

Hard to tank when you don't have many to begin with. Rust is far nicer to new users to contribute to then old C++ code. Which can be seen in their github - in the last 24 months 16 people have contributed more then 10 commits. Which is during the conversion period - I dont expect that many of those to be C++ contributions. So rust does not seem to have hurt their contributions at all and in fact looks to have helped.

I think their though process is more along the line of:

Hey, Microsoft is getting all the bad attention ATM, let's see how much shit we can sneak in while people are distracted.

I thought it was going to talk about MINIX and how all intel CPUs run it on ring -3.

I don't quite follow your arguments. X11 got big and bloated, wayland applications need to worry about the different compositors? So we should use one implementation? Implementations should be irrelevant. That is the whole point of an API/protocal - a description of how things should talk to each other even for different implementations.

I don't see how one implementation helps here - that one implementation still needs APIs for the applications to talk to. The problem is not that there are different implementations but maybe that the wayland protocol does not cover enough of the API space needed by applications. Some of which are addressed by things like the xdg-desktop-portal.

In unit testing, a "unit" does not have to be the smallest possible section of code. It can be a while class or module or even set of related classes/modules. Testing individual functions in isolation leads to brittle tests that easily break during refactoring. Testing overall system behaviour results in more robust tests that require fewer changes during refactoring which gives you more confidence then you have not introduced a regression.

What is not reasonable then? Everyone would have their own ideas of what is reasonable. Why advertise anything as unlimited when it is not? Having a limit in their advert let's people know what they can use rather then being told randomly at some point that they have had too much.

Advertisements should not lie about the product. They do it to get more sales, and then complain when it gets abused. You cannot have it both ways.

The lesson here is that floating point numbers are not exact and that you should never do a straight comparison with them. Instead check to see if they are within some small tolerance of each other. In python that is done with math.isclose(0.1 + 0.2, 0.3).