[wilun]

That's an interesting tool, but merely among other. Not the next big things to structure thread usage. There are loads of problems if we wanted to generalize that solution as fundamental, and a quick review of the state of the art (of which we can have a quick preview by taking a look at these very comment threads on HN) show a wide spectrum of alternatives, sometimes for similar and sometimes for somewhat different use cases.

I see fundamental issues with it: in some cases the checking model proposed by Rust is better; also - and this is related -, your don't always fix things reliably by mindlessly extending lifetimes or delaying things until termination of others, in the same way that mindlessly switching a resource usage to a shared_ptr in C++ if you had a lifetime issue can't be done in the general case, because you could very well only be trading a bug for another. Checking capabilities are more useful and general than constructive limitations, especially when we have load of counter examples on use cases.

So without hesitation: yes, this is more structured than having no structure on the point considered, but that is not at all a sufficient criteria to make that the kind of panacea the author seems to think it is. I would have been way more positive in seeing that presented as a comparison with the other existing solutions, similar or not, and without that little escape hatch story that makes me thing the author has found a hammer and now everything looks like a nail to them.