Don't take things to literally, the outcome of "we set out to build an arbitrarily smart compiler" and "we build an arbitrarily smart compiler to achieve X" are indistinguishable.
Neither has occurred and neither will occur. Again, stop making crap up. The goal of the Rust project is not to inject "as much smartness between what you type and what the compiler produces." That's a gross mischaracterization.
I'm just trying to correct disinformation. It's an important one too, because then otherwise you get to go on pretending as if the Rust project likes complexity for the sake of complexity.
> otherwise you get to go on pretending as if the Rust project likes complexity for the sake of complexity.
Your words, not mine.
I'm fine with a smart compiler. I also think that a high-level language (which Rust is in a sense) also really needs a spec, which MiniRust graciously provides.
This isn't about whether you or anyone else "likes" a smart compiler. This is about not making shit up about the goals that others have.
Maybe I should have said this before, but I'm part of the Rust project. I've been part of it almost a decade now. There has never been any moment or point in time in which I or anyone else I've seen in the project that has "the goal of putting as much smartness between what you type and what the compiler produces." You are just factually wrong.
If anything, it's exactly the opposite. You don't want too much smartness. But you need some of it (to the best of our knowledge) to achieve our actual goals, which, pithily stated, are "a memory safe systems language."
