What the fuck did they just fucking imply about the necessity of CrabLang, that little bitch!?!?

What a deeply unethical question. How immoral, how immoral indeed.

/uj

Perhaps, my unscrupulous friend, you can start with considering that it is a language designed by people who appear to rank the opinions of devs who use it to develop "may-theoretically-one-day-be-kinda-sort-vaguelyish-as-good-as-LLVM" libs absurdly higher than they should, and who describe (gasp!) parsing inline assembly as "difficult and risky."

Not that it necessarily isn't those things, "Comex", but it is very well-trodden ground by other compilers all the same. D supports assembly in that form. As does Fred Paskell. Surely, if Orange Crab is so great, it must have devs available to it who basically eat that shit for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and could pull it off without much of an issue? I'd hope so!

Alternatively, perhaps: "because it's designed by people who, and this is an accurate quote of the sentiment, think C is a language you need to have parity with (which in the case of Rust means, uh, what? Removing strings? Generics? Basically everything!) as opposed to just a language that's been around for a really long time and as such remains popular, while not at all being something anyone should bother "measuring up against."