[lfourunderscore]

> My criteria were subjective but simple to understand: the language should introduce new concepts (as Principia Discordia puts it, ’tis an ill wind that blows no minds) [...]

I wonder how many people share this opinion. I derive as much if not more value from the refinement of existing concepts than the introduction of new ones.

Wanting new concepts just for it's own sake is wild to me.

[rob74]

The whole list sounded a bit strange to me - it looks more like a list he compiled after the fact to explain why he chose Rust, rather than some criteria he had decided on before evaluating several languages. Of course, I can sympathize with wanting to use a language that tries new concepts, but there's something to be said in favor of languages like Go that make a point of only using tried and tested concepts and making sure that they work well together too...

[solatic]

People are rarely willing to adopt 10% improvements. Every improvement, no matter how small, needs to be taught to the larger community of users and other stakeholders; it is relatively rare for you to be the sole stakeholder, and thus the cost of adopting the improvement is rarely worth the improvement itself, endangering making improvements. Only 10x-style improvements have a good chance of widescale adoption. Thinking that you can short-circuit this by passing 10% improvements in widely adopted languages is the mark of someone who never tried to get language features like the "var" keyword adopted in multi-million-line Java codebases.

[kelnos]

Wanting to encounter new concepts feels like a basic requirement for intellectual curiosity.

I suppose there's a difference between wanting to encounter new concepts, and wanting to find them as a part of a programming language you've decided to learn and use, though.