Yes, it seems to me that the only difference is that destructors are called implicitly in c++/rust and explicitly in austral.
I wonder if IDE support could help to get the best of both worlds: the IDE could automatically add the destructors call in code where needed, with an "automatically-generated" annotation that would allow to update and remove the calls as needed. I actually kind of like the idea.
Similar things could be done for inference/type deduction.
Possibly exceptions as well.
The ide could also allow hiding the automatically generated blocks when you want to focus on the code isntead of the incidental bits.
Probably these days new languages need to come with lsp-support out of the box, so that seems the best place to add the magic.
I wonder if IDE support could help to get the best of both worlds: the IDE could automatically add the destructors call in code where needed, with an "automatically-generated" annotation that would allow to update and remove the calls as needed. I actually kind of like the idea.
Similar things could be done for inference/type deduction.
Possibly exceptions as well.
The ide could also allow hiding the automatically generated blocks when you want to focus on the code isntead of the incidental bits.
Probably these days new languages need to come with lsp-support out of the box, so that seems the best place to add the magic.