[sidlls]

Then maybe the Rust community would be better served by not hyper-evangelizing it so much and at the same time bashing other languages?

There's a perception issue here: people think that Rust people (not necessarily the maintainers or official evangelists, but the community at-large) think Rust is as close to perfect as you can get because of its safety features, because these people talk about Rust like it's a universal problem solver.

[pjmlp]

I kind of agree, that is why you tend to see for-and-against comments from my side.

Despite the plus sides, there are lots of incumbents, certain domains are better served by managed languages, and regardless of our wishes C and C++ have 50 years of history.

Even if we stop writing new code in those languages today, Cobol shows us how long we would still need to keep them running anyway.

Microsoft, for example, despite their newly found love with Rust, is full of job ads for C++ developers in green field applications.

[moltonel3x]

This points to the larger perception issue that "anybody who advocates for Rust is part of the Rust community and/or knows Rust well". But there are many Rust evangelists who obviously don't know much about Rust (this is not Rust-specific, it's a common issue in tech). This kind of "positive FUD" is ultimately harmful, as outsiders understandably get tired of the hype and start ignoring any pro-Rust argument, good or bad.

In my experience, the community of actual Rust users is much more level-headed. While most do love the language and the "this aspect of Rust is irrefutably better than the equivalent in $OTHERLANG" opinion occasionally pops up, the community seems pragmatic and well aware of Rust's cons. Case in point: the "should I use Rust" questions on the rust subreddit don't get dogmatic answers, and often result in "Rust isn't ideal for your use-case" advice.