[rvz]

It's just a tool. But to some people, Rust is more like a religion than a tool and they let it define them to the point even the language maintainers disavow them.

At any point, if you provide any conterpoints or fair criticism towards the language objectively, just expect lots of fans to remind you that it is the best programming language ever created and yours is "unsafe" by default.

[swiftcoder]

> At any point, if you provide any conterpoints or fair criticism towards the language objectively, just expect lots of fans to remind you that it is the best programming language ever created and yours is "unsafe" by default.

This is mostly just a disagreement about what the word "unsafe" means in this context?

"safe" and "unsafe" in the sense Rust uses them aren't a moral judgment about a language, it's a specific (and limited in scope) feature of the language, where memory safety is enforced by the compiler.

[dijit]

I like Rust, though I’m not zealous about it.

Sometimes when you have a really good tool, you want to share it.

This was the case with Linux for many people over many years.

FWIW I agree that the community has some frustrating elements, and that its a lot of dogma in comments, though I actually think that’s a fringe element.

[ozim]

Sounds like the point of the article is that you can just use the language and keep counterpoints to yourself.