[KyeRussell]

The author appears to be quite green behind the ears, which is fine! They’re certainly doing themselves a disservice by being so sure of themselves. There’s a lot here that feels right in the pocket of Dunning-Kruger ignorance.

Being able to analyse the benefits of new tech at a distance (which is what the author is doing with their sterile toy projects) is not something that you can “fake until you make it”. It requires a lot of deep experience with different technologies, enough that you can pick up the common patterns of costs and benefits, which for the most part never change. This is exactly what OP is doing. Their big list of languages they’ve worked with is doing the opposite of what the author intends. All it says to me is that their bar is way too low, and that they do not understand the level of technological understanding required for a language’s inclusion in that list to mean absolutely anything in the context of this blog post.

In all I’m not really sure what the point of this post is. By the author’s own admission they haven’t worked with much C. If someone doesn’t understand the value in a language that addresses the memory safety footguns of C, I assume that they’re at best inexperienced, or at worst part of the quite sizeable contingent of C developers that are in complete denial about the language / standard library’s shortcomings, especially with regard to memory safety, because it’d require them to admit that they themselves are imperfect developers.

[jbstack]

> They’re certainly doing themselves a disservice by being so sure of themselves

I didn't find the OP to be sure of themselves. See e.g.:

"Admittedly, this would slowly go away as I gained more experience with the language."

"This is likely because I haven’t spent enormous amounts of time in C/C++"

"I will probably come out on the other side with a lot of the same feelings about C as other languages."

"Maybe I will find the complicated syntax and rules of Rust are worth it."