I went the "only let introduces bindings" route, and I'm pretty happy so far:

if (left.next(), right.next())
... is (Some(let l), Some(let r)) { /* use l and r */ }
... is (Some(let l), None       ) { /* use l       */ }
... is (None,        Some(let r)) { /* use r       */ }
... is (None,        None       ) { /* use nothing */ }
}

Some of the earlier ones remind me of C#'s records. Were they inspired from them?

No, that stuff is much much older.

Named parameters are problematic because of parameter names becoming significant to the API. See Python’s * and / in parameter lists (like def foo(a, *, b) for example).

I think the name problem is overblown, you can always have an annotation to facilitate name changes.

In addition to that, I have my own list of things Rust should not have shipped with, but did.

This. I'd rather have fewer, better working features.

This exactly what I described in 2021, so I'm pretty happy seeing other languages also going this route.

Sadly, they also don't have a solution for the follow-up question that naturally falls out if this approach -- how to "unbox" generic types such that they can be used directly and don't need some additional type to hold it, i.e.

union Option[T] of T, None // None defined elsewhere

instead of

union Option[T] of Some[T], None // Some & None defined elsewhere

Rust devs sometimes seem to be an incredibly insecure and angry crowd.

I mentioned elsewhere how I had very good outcomes from looking at Rust and asking "how can this be done, but simpler?" in my language, listing a few examples ... and they were absolutely livid about it.

I would be deeply uncomfortable to work in an environment where one couldn't ask the author of a change for insights or rationale, because the author let some machine write it and therefore lacks any deeper understanding.

I'm on Codeberg because it cannot get bought out and enshittified (like GutHub, or GitLab).

I'm at a point where I reconsider my contribution if the project uses GitHub.

I think it's due to multiple reasons, and the threshold of rejecting the course of GitHub/Microsoft/the USA seems to have reached a level where GitHub stopped being the "default" place to be for a number of projects already.

And if you are at a point were you need a Codeberg account anyway already, why not move your own projects there (or use it for new ones)?

Not to mention, the Forgejo project is at a stage were it feels like your bug report/feature request/contribution has an actual impact.

No?

Only if you like "eventual consistency", in the sense of "eventually, your data is consistently gone".