It’s hinted at in the introduction to the Raft paper, that Raft is "most notably" similar to Viewstamped Replication from Brian Oki, Barbara Liskov and James Cowling at MIT. Reason being that Raft’s primary goal was not so much to reinvent or contribute consensus, so much as to repackage consensus to be "more understandable than Paxos". Nevertheless, it’s not widely known, and probably could be emphasized a bit more, that the protocol is otherwise pretty much ‘88 Oki VSR (same essential protocol, different terms), itself predating Paxos a year.
For example, if you compare '14 Raft (Stanford) with '12 VSR (MIT’s revision to their ‘88 original), the resemblance is striking:
2012: http://pmg.csail.mit.edu/papers/vr-revisited.pdf [1]
2014: https://raft.github.io/raft.pdf
Presentation aside, the only major difference is that Raft’s view change (called leader election in the Raft paper) preserves the flavor of Oki’s ‘88 Viewstamped Replication view change, electing the candidate with the longest log, and missing out on the improved round-robin view change from MIT in ‘12, that brings better stability and availability, with lower latency, and no dueling leaders.
Raft has had a tremendous impact, compared to Paxos, in helping engineers to understand consensus. But once the training wheels are there, it’s important that we also understand and preserve the history of consensus, the people who pioneered these protocols.
[1] It's an accident of history that '12 VSR wasn't promoted as much as Raft would be, two years later. Otherwise, '12 VSR from James Cowling is arguably just as understandable, if not more. For example, because of the improved view change, the paper can begin immediately with normal replication. And there's no discussion, for example, of the need for randomized timeouts, it's elegantly designed away.
I agree with you that Paxos is simpler than Raft. The problem with Paxos IMO is that Lamport's original paper is impenetrable; lots of later writing is easier to understand, including those that describe more complex protocols. The intuitions are actually pretty straightforward, and transfer to all of the extensions to Paxos (which are not as straightforwardly compatible with Raft).
Raft may have helped more people get comfortable with distributed consensus, and sped its adoption, but being a sort of dangling branch of the tech tree I wonder if this may have stalled progress beyond it.
In the past I've abused virtual memory systems to block off a bunch of pages after my array. This lets you use an array data structure, have guard pages to prevent out of bounds access, and to have stable pointers in the data structure.
This project was compiled and digitized by Charles Yang under the Center for Industrial Strategy, with assistance from Jacks Flenniken.
XSLT used as a "stylesheet" in browsers isn't dynamic, so it's like browsing static HTML pages, but expanding of on-the-wire data representation into repetitive HTML is done with XSLT's rules instead of just gzip/brotli (and it doesn't make much difference, because regular compression is really good at compressing the same things that XSLT is good at generating).
For XHTML the effect is almost identical to preprocessing the data server-side, except minor quibbles about whose CPU time is spent on it, how many bytes can be saved.
The only remaining use-case for XSLT is stopping browsers from displaying RSS like garbage, but that's using one browser feature to fix another browser regression. It'd be easier and more helpful to bring back integrated RSS readers, instead giving you very sophisticated technology for apologising how useless the RSS URL is.