[greenfield1]

Exactly. In other words, the post could have just continued with C++ and shown a better way to do it in the same language.

[shakow]

And maybe, just maybe, the guys knows Rust better than C++ and just want to take an example from their daily work rather than take every single precaution not to hurt the fragile sensibilities of HN reader unable to see the point if their life depended on it?

[pjmlp]

Then they should have presented the case that way, instead of showing C like code and assuming there is no way to do that in C++.

[shakow]

> Then they should have presented the case that way

That's exactly what they did.

> assuming there is no way to do that in C++

You are extrapolating things that are nowhere to be found in the article.

[greenfield1]

> > Then they should have presented the case that way

> That's exactly what they did.

You have read the article, right? It starts with showing how it looks like in C++ and then goes on with the revelation "In Rust on the other hand ...". Literally. This strongly suggests that what they are getting at is a language feature that sets Rust apart from C++.

[pjmlp]

C like code was presented as C++, while Rust code using an existing library was presented as something not available in C++ (type level programming).

[shakow]

> C like code was presented as C++

Blame Arduino for their stdlib.

> was presented as something not available in C++

You are putting things in the author's mouth, they never said that; only that it was not available in Arduino's stdlib.

[pjmlp]

What about blame the author for their lack of C++ skills while selling Rust, and pretending otherwise?