While I appreciate your candor, you may want to know what argument, exactly, you are putatively refuting? (Specifically: the argument is not about types -- it's about ownership.) If it's not too much to ask, take two minutes to watch the linked clip. As for the composable BTree implementation, I actually am not asking for your opinion -- I'm asking for a link to the implementation itself. The details here matter (and indeed, that's the whole point).
I watched the video now and it is literally what one of the parent comments paraphrased and what I was responding to.
What you said is:
> I can write C that frees memory properly...that basically doesn't suffer from memory corruption...I can do that, because I'm controlling heaven and earth in my software. It makes it very hard to compose software. Because even if you and I both know how to write memory safe C, it's very hard for us to have an interface boundary where we can agree about who does what.
And I stand by my point. Single-responsibility principle will get you covered, yes, even in C.
> I actually am not asking for your opinion --
You could show some respect.
> I'm asking for a link to the implementation itself. The details here matter
B-tree btw is a silly example which particularly is not among the hard design problems out there and there are dozens of implementations laying around. Obvious examples to look for would be in transactional database systems implemented in C.
> (and indeed, that's the whole point).
... and the point not being quite clear, even after politely asking for a clarification, so perhaps next time you don't try to play the authority but try to provide an actual example to support your otherwise questionable claim. I'm sure Rust community will profit from individuals like yourself.
