Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?)

Path	csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?)
Date	Mon, 10 Mar 2025 10:17:23 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Lines	24
Message-ID	<86tt80u7oc.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink)
References	<vqmi1p$f1f$1@reader1.panix.com> <vqmofm$6r9q$1@news.xmission.com> <vqmt6a$abj$2@reader1.panix.com> <vqn04q$6vsu$1@news.xmission.com> <vqn19h$qai$1@reader1.panix.com>
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Date	Mon, 10 Mar 2025 18:17:24 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info	dont-email.me; posting-host="69916c1f61131b9c9448dceae1605ce4"; logging-data="1534290"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19v4d75ESBLmH8FX/x/+FvoOkCO6xWgdok="
User-Agent	Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock	sha1:6ST3ERJybZ2NXYuxe4oQLwyTpxU= sha1:P+OZ71Lcr3Nm29TX/DhCdTA7bl0=
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.c:390954

Show key headers only | View raw

cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:

[...]

> So far, as near as I can tell, the only person who's actually
> engaged with the proposal was Tim Rentsch, who responded in
> in comp.programming that he was in favor of comp.lang.rust.

A small note of explanation...

One, I have a rule not to post in newsgroups I don't read.
That's why I chose from among the newsgroups where I saw the
original posting as a group in which to post a response.

Two, in most cases I think giving multiple newsgroups on a single
message hurts more than it helps, and I almost never do so.
(Also I have no interest in debating the question;  if someone
has a different view, that's fine, but there is no point in
starting an argument about it.)

Three, I responded in the newsgroup that IMO has the best
impedance match to the question asked, and had every confidence
that Dan would carry my input to wherever it is most needed (and
clearly that confidence is justified).

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 07:46 -0400
  Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-03-10 13:12 +0000
    Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 14:32 +0000
      Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-10 14:54 +0000
        Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 17:35 -0400
      Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-03-10 15:23 +0000
        Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 15:42 +0000
          Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-10 17:55 +0200
          Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-10 10:17 -0700
            Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 18:33 +0000
          Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-10 19:23 +0100
            Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 18:32 +0000
          Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-10 19:05 +0000
            Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 19:11 +0000
              Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-10 19:22 +0000
                Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-10 19:26 +0000
          Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-03-10 19:54 +0000
          Re: Topicality Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-10 18:34 -0700
  Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-10 17:35 -0400
  Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 15:30 -0500
    Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 15:33 -0500
    Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-11 21:56 +0000
    Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-11 22:31 +0000
      Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-03-11 23:29 -0500
        Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-12 09:09 +0000
          Re: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust? Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 15:50 -0500

csiph-web