Not this time, I mostly agree with the comment I was responding to, in general.
However the tone implied a “know-it-all-it’s-easy-just-do-this” solution, which, as everybody who has had children knows, does not exist. Every child is different, and they all respond differently to the same thing.
Furthermore the comment gave explicit orders and judgments of other parents, which, if he is not a parent himself, is completely unacceptable (and even if he is, it is still unacceptable). The rule is simple: never ever judge a parent. You do not know the sh*t they have to deal with (and tbh the same goes for non-parents too…).
Obviously giving advice is completely fair, but the tone matters.
A: “it’s important to communicate honestly with your kids and spend time with them in a way that provides them alternatives to common yet inferior modes of living life”
B: “To suggest such, you must not have kids yourself”
Is someone feeling inadequate? Better to look into the mirror than to try to turn it on those who challenge you
Currently you set up a new Stripe Connect account to get started. We tried the "connect existing account" flow and discovered that, maybe due to regulations or Stripe policies, we weren't able to debit the existing accounts.
Our Stripe flow is different from the run of the mill billing SaaS because we're involved in the movement of money (rather than simply using your Stripe key to steer API requests on your behalf).
We know that makes us look a bit like a fish with legs while we grow towards where we want to be.
I believe that means you are more or less setting yourself up as a payment facilitator, meaning you and your other merchants will be kicked off Stripe at any time if too many of your merchants misbehave. Is your compliance team ready for that?
It doesn't have the single feature that anyone cares about in Rust - compiler-enforced ownership semantics. And it's not in any way a system-level language (you couldn't use it without its stdlib for example, like in the Linux kernel).
The other features it shares with Rust are also shared by many other languages.
Compiler-enforced ownership semantics is now a part of Swift with non-copyable types. In all honesty I do not know enough of rust to know how on-par the features are, but there is something.
Not sure about using Swift in a kernel as I’m not low-level enough to know that either, but you can indeed use Swift on embedded systems[1].
But Swift is not "Kotlin for Rust" though, I can't see the connection at all. "Kotlin for Rust" would be a language that keeps you in the Rust ecosystem.
The commenter I replied to seems to like Kotlin. Swift is extremely close to Kotlin in syntax and features, but is not for the JVM. Swift also has a lot of similarities with Rust, if you ignore the fact that it has a garbage collector.
A Kotlin for Rust would be a drop-in replacement where you could have a crate or even just a module written in this hypothetical language and it just works. No bridging or FFI. That’s not Swift.
You all need to stop with the hair-splitting – it's tiresome.
My intention was to offer something that might be of interest to the person I replied to – not to write the official definition of "Kotlin for Rust" which everybody has to agree to. If you think my answer is nonsense, just skip it and read the next one. No need to reply. Nobody profits from this discourse.
reply