You seem to be at least suggesting, that if one adds differentiable programming as a first class language feature, IDEs would either automatically be intelligent about it, or that making these tools know about the feature would somehow be simpler.
That's not true. IDEs would need to add support for that feature, and whether the feature is a language feature, or a custom Rust macro, for Rust at least, the amount of work required is the same.
Rust IDEs already understand many ecosystem macros (cfg_if, serde derives, etc.). Somebody would just need to put in the work for a new macro, but that would need to be the case anyways.
The same would apply to Rust static analysis tools like clippy. Somebody would need to write lints, and whether those target an ecosystem macro or a keyword doesn't really matter with respect to the amount of work that this requries.
That's not true. IDEs would need to add support for that feature, and whether the feature is a language feature, or a custom Rust macro, for Rust at least, the amount of work required is the same.
Rust IDEs already understand many ecosystem macros (cfg_if, serde derives, etc.). Somebody would just need to put in the work for a new macro, but that would need to be the case anyways.
The same would apply to Rust static analysis tools like clippy. Somebody would need to write lints, and whether those target an ecosystem macro or a keyword doesn't really matter with respect to the amount of work that this requries.