Yes, we know. We get it. Rust is not an absolute guarantee of safety and doesn’t protect us from all the bugs. This is obvious and well-known to anyone actually using Rust.
At this point, the argument feels like some sort of ideological debate happening outside the realm of actually getting work done. It feels like any time someone says that Rust defends against certain types of safety errors, someone feels obligated to pop out of the background and remind everyone that it doesn’t protect against every code safety issue.
I keep seeing claims that Rust users are insufferable and claim that Rust protects against everything. But, as someone who has started using Rust around 0.4, I have never seen these insufferable users.
I imagine that they lurk on some communities?
Like any language that has very cool features, there are people that take that tool as not a tool but a religion.
You can even look in my comment history and see people arguing with me when I say I was a rust fan, but memory safety isn't a requirement in some areas of programming. One person made it there mission to convince me that can't possibly be the case and in (in my example of video games) that any memory bug crashes and game and will make users quit and leave.
I feel like it's a defensive reaction, that people feel like Rust is seeking to obviate arcane skills they've built over the course of their careers. Which I don't think is true, I think there will always be a need for such skills and that Rust has no mission to disrupt other language communities, but I can understand the reaction.
> You can even look in my comment history
Is this the thread you're referring to?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32878868
Because I genuinely don't see what you're talking about. No one seems to "make it their mission" and no one seems to be arguing for Rust in particular, as much as this category of languages.
If you need an example of the rust community being toxic, I give you https://github.com/actix/actix-web
Look up the history and realize they bullied an open source project leader into leaving open source for good.
I still don't understand the relevance, this neither appears toxic nor to be a discussion of Rust; this looks like they put forward an out-there idea and you didn't care for it, which just seems like a discussion about consumer protection laws. I also don't see the connection from Actix drama to the idea that people are exaggerating the capabilities of Rust or causing problems for other language communities - I don't know much about it, I'm fully willing to believe toxicity was involved, but a breakdown in communication between a maintainer and their community doesn't seem like the behavior we're discussing and I don't see any evidence this was peculiar to Rust and not a phenomenon in open source at large.
I don't want to relitigate some thread I wasn't even a part of, I just don't understand.
After saying everyone was empowered to use their tool, they tried to kick someone off the team for working for Palantir.
Regardless of politics, kinda unfair to make political statements using the rust accounts, then turn around and say other people can’t be part of rust because they work for a company who is political.