Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like that's ever-so-slightly different from what GP was talking about. Beyond the potential hyperbole ("unthinkable", "any reason"), I think there's a difference between "we support C89 because nothing in later standards is useful/interests us" (which is what I interpreted GP to be talking about) and "we support C89 because we want to support platforms/compilers that don't support C99/later". cjson looks like…
Sure, I think we’re essentially looking at the same thing from different angles. They are saying the changes in the C standard are minor enough that forcing people to upgrade isn’t worth the costs, such as losing compatibility with old toolchains for niche platforms. So they stay on an old C version. It would be amazing if Rust was as the point where people were ready to have conversations like that. New versions of…
I sort of lean towards thinking that they aren't exactly the same thing in general, but in the embedded C world they're correlated enough that it can be hard to separate individual influences.
> They are saying the changes in the C standard are minor enough that forcing people to upgrade isn’t worth the costs, such as losing compatibility with old toolchains for niche platforms. So they stay on an old C version.
Right, and I think that's a not unreasonable position when worded that way! I'm mostly complaining about the hyperbole - "unthinkable" and "any reason" are pretty high standards which I feel are basically impossible to meet in general - as with many things, there are always tradeoffs and the balance will shift over time.
I do wonder what effect LLVM has had, if any, on the Rust ecosystem's general fast pace. Less support for embedded systems means less early ecosystem pressure that might have motivated more stability, or something along those lines.