Compilers are in this weird spot where they are really mathematically defined programs (which OCaml excels at implementing), while also having high runtime efficiency as a requirement (the reason why C/C++ are such prominent languages for compilers).
With such requirements, I think a point that is fair to make is that Rust acts as a great middle-ground. It avoids the cost of automatic memory management and provides low-level control while also having a more powerful type system and a more "functional" style.
Brushing off the actual efficiency of the produced binary seems like a huge oversight when dealing with a compiler.
Haven't seen any mention of an "incentive to work/train" or "motivation" trait, which is kind of a huge oversight.
Talent is good and all, but if a genius never gets motivated to work on anything, this would clearly affect success.
The results are still interesting, sure, but they clearly should'nt be taken as an accurate representation of reality.
With such requirements, I think a point that is fair to make is that Rust acts as a great middle-ground. It avoids the cost of automatic memory management and provides low-level control while also having a more powerful type system and a more "functional" style.
Brushing off the actual efficiency of the produced binary seems like a huge oversight when dealing with a compiler.