Re: Topicality (Was: Informal discussion: comp.lang.rust?)

In article <vqnan6$1fn62$1@dont-email.me>,
David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 10/03/2025 16:42, Dan Cross wrote:

[snip]
So far, as near as I can tell, the only person who's actually
engaged with the proposal was Tim Rentsch, who responded in
in comp.programming that he was in favor of comp.lang.rust.

>
For what it is worth, I think it makes sense to ask here (and in the
other groups I have seen your post - c.l.c++ and c.programming) to ask
about interest in comp.lang.rust.  Many people who are interested in
Rust and who use Usenet, will be found in one of those groups.  It might
not be strictly topical for c.l.c., but it is certainly of potential
interest to a number of people here.
>
I also think that if you do create the group, announcing it here in
c.l.c. is appropriate.
>
Like Tim, I am not overly keen on posting in one group with a follow-up
to another group, if you are expecting replies from people here (rather
than just making an announcement).  When I read something in c.l.c. and
want to discuss it, I think it is natural to do so in c.l.c.
(c.programming may be more natural for this discussion, but the audience
is pretty minimal there.)
>
I don't think there will be much life in a comp.lang.rust group - groups
like c.l.c. are held together by people who have been programming in C
and haunting Usenet for decades.  Rust is too young, so I think it will
be hard to establish a community in a Rust newsgroup.  However, I may be
wrong, and I wish you the best of luck with it.
>
(I know there are Rust programmers in comp.arch, and perhaps some follow
comp.lang.misc, if you are looking for other appropriate newsgroups.)

That's fair; thanks for the measured response and suggestions.
I see that Tim also chimed in.  I'll do my best to keep track of
responses and post again when appropriate.

- Dan C.