> 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.

> > 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++.

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).

> 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.

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

Once again, you're reading a language war where there is none.

Read the bloody article, it's all about the type system, not the language.

Do you really expect the author to rewrite the Arduino stdlib for the sake of pjmlp's sensibility?

I expect the author to actually learn C++ to start with.

I survived the Usenet flamewars, there is no sensibility to hurt.

Looking at the fellow comments the crowd shares a similar opinion on the article.

Some food for thought.