And it burned money like no tomorrow with no real revenue generation. Now that it’s past the initial hype and not getting them in the news cycle it’s just a waste of money.

So, rust can do a lot of the same stuff as C and its various derivatives (further referred to as just C for simplicity here) Increasingly it’s gained prominence doing stuff that used to be only done in C. A lot of the core utilities and Linux kernel are written in C. Now, there has been some folks writing contributions to the Linux kernel in rust, and Ubuntu has done some work to rewrite some of the core utilities in rust.

I’m not privy to the deep lore (mailing list drama) but, my understanding is that there are a lot of people throughly opposed to using rust for important low level stuff in Linux and apparently some people who want to rewrite everything in rust.

I suspect the reality is that… as rust has gained prominence in other areas, some people have developed a lot of experience with it and are more comfortable with it than they are with C. They have thus advocated for using rust to contribute to things. People who are more comfortable with C on the other hand are frustrated when they try to parse a language they’re not as familiar with. And thus, many debates have raged over the qualities of one over the other, and salt has been scattered.

On the one hand, I’m skeptical of the assertions that pen and paper is inherently a better way to take notes and learn.

But I do agree with the general aversion to a lot of ed tech. So much effort to shove kids faces in front of softwear and hardware that was sold to administrators by marketing teams from big tech companies. So many opportunities for those tech companies to exploit local school districts, ether to extract unreasonable profits, or for access to a mailable locked in user base.

If a school is going to go all in teaching with computers, they need to be carefully choosing what they use and not just adopting a premade package from some tech company.