Re: Microsoft is considering moving to Rust; potential opportunity for Ada2020

[Optikos <optikos@verizon.net>]

On Friday, July 26, 2019 at 9:11:33 AM UTC-5, Shark8 wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 17, 2019 at 12:17:45 PM UTC-6, Optikos wrote:
> > https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-to-explore-using-rust
> 
> Of possible interest is this discussion on xlang:
> https://github.com/Microsoft/xlang/issues/226

Shark8, thank you for engaging Microsoft on this topic; many valid & useful critiques were raised.  16 days ago, it was closed due to the gist of the replies being philosophical design.  I would recommend shifting strategies to the following:
1) Find concrete examples of where slang's current approach to types will misbehave or be less than fully useful or, best yet, be a total unmitigated disaster.
2) Aim straight for the jugular vein in as tight of language as possible.  Give concrete ugliest vile examples in real code snippets in slang's favorite top-priority programming languages (e.g., Python, Javascript, C++).  The examples should be nasty push-comes-to-shove total embarrassments of the current approach to types in xlang interior between languages (and library APIs thereof).
3) Despite #2 being the worst bad news that we can find, #2's wording should always be polite, short & to-the-point, and service-with-a-smile, emphasizing the wow-factor of in the tone of: “Gee, that looks like a bad situation that you & your type system got yourself into; how are you going to get out of •that• tight spot without Ada's subtype capabilities?  Good luck with that!  You realize that the solution to this problem's path is already blazed in Ada's wise subtype system, don't you?  Of course, we could stand on the shoulders of Ada-giants that came before decades ago, instead of trying to reinvent the square-wheel badly.”  But not in that direct wording—more polite & oblique than that, but with the same import & meaning.
4) Enter each example as a new defect-issue number, instead of a rambling litany-list of minor issues.  Make xlang's leadership sweat each defect as a stand-alone separate mess in a review meeting with their peers & bosses, rather than simply deftly closing the issue as off-topic “design”.