> design-by-committee

I don't think it is about having committee, but rather having a spec. And I mean spec, not necessarily ISO standard. There should be a description of how specific features work, what is expected behavior, what is unexpected and should be treated as bug, and what is rationale behind specific decision.

Coincidentally people here hate specs as well, and that explains some things.

I know there is some work on Rust spec, but it doesn't seem to progress much.

> I know people here hate design-by-committee, but historically it's led to some very cohesive languages.

C++ is not cohesive at all

Well ok ... experiment but maybe unlike c++ we could have added N keywords removed M keywords for arguably net-simpler language.

Geez I'd hate to be in rust dev shoes if I can't remove something later when I have a better better min/max. I guess this could be done off main, stable.

Rust is also design-by-committee.

Yes, however how many of them are used in production to some level of scale (not even to the scale of Rust)? Stroustrup's quote and all that.

Rust's development process is also design by committee, interestingly enough.