Yeah. The culture crash here is shocking dissonant. The people you'd normally expect to be the biggest voices for documentation robustness are...
... suddenly finding themselves in the "Actually, language standards are bad" camp, all because of a tribal opposition to the FSF?
Write the standard. Then argue that gccrust doesn't do it right. Don't refuse to document the language just to hamstring a competitor.
Also, please start with the borrow checker semantics. I don't think I've ever met anyone who could explain exactly what the rules are regarding what it can/can't prove.
What culture crash? The Rust project has a language reference, is working on expanding it into a more formal spec, and there are efforts like Ferrocene's to qualify the existing compiler for use in safety critical environments.
The argument is not that language standards are bad, it's that a C++-like ISO standard is unnecessary (when the quality documentation can exist in another form) and C++-like implementation fragmentation is bad.
... suddenly finding themselves in the "Actually, language standards are bad" camp, all because of a tribal opposition to the FSF?
Write the standard. Then argue that gccrust doesn't do it right. Don't refuse to document the language just to hamstring a competitor.
Also, please start with the borrow checker semantics. I don't think I've ever met anyone who could explain exactly what the rules are regarding what it can/can't prove.