Reasons not to use Rust

- You think programming languages should be closed and proprietary
- You like random pauses caused by forced collection of the garbage
- You think program start-up should take minutes so you use stupid VM-languages instead
- You like broken features and memory corruption
- You sell hardware and want to deploy inefficient scripting languages only to sell more
- You only do pure programs that don't interact with the world
- You are a retard who doesn't understand the concept of ownership

Anything else?

>>23

Most popular programming languages have no such specification

everyone else is shit so it's ok that rust is too

no

Standardization is most effective at codifying existing practice

the purpose of a language specification is so that you can understand what programs are valid and what they mean. Without this we have to go by intuition, extrapolating from other languages and tutorials, running the code to 'try it and see' etc. This is beyond ridiculous for a "systems programming language" especially one that is probably going to become the go-to language for security critical software - by defending the lack of spec. and worse proofs of the safety properties that they claim.. then you're asking for rust to collapse in on itself and become the next PHP rather than something better and it has potential.