[norir]

> Do you not value the increased memory safety?

Sure, but the way that rust does it comes with a heavy cost, including slow compile times and confusing lifetime semantics (and, in my subjective opinion, poor syntax). There are other techniques to achieve memory safety that are simpler and more ergonomic (to me at least) than borrow checking. Vale, for example, has some interesting ideas in this space.

One of the main reasons that people complain about rust is because it has an extremely loud group of evangelists who often shame other people for taking a different approach and essentially refuse to acknowledge that others have a point about its weaknesses. It is always off-putting when a community goes around telling everyone else that they are doing it wrong, particularly when they are ignoring the very real flaws in their own way of doing things.

[avgcorrection]

> One of the main reasons that people complain about rust is because it has an extremely loud group of evangelists who often shame other people for taking a different approach and essentially refuse to acknowledge that others have a point about its weaknesses.

Name them. Maybe you don’t have real names but you can probably cough up some Internet handles.

The “fanatical rustacean” is a bit of a 2018 thing. Out of the few who are actually evangelists I an fact think that they can be way too nice and conflict-averse (“right tool for the job”).

[norir]

You realize I was responding to a comment in which the OP asked why we don't like memory safety? That is exactly what I an talking about. The coder's internet is filled with this type of attitude. You can disavow these types as not real rustaceans or whatever, but this language definitely attracts purists, which makes sense given that its main selling point is a form of purity.

[davidatbu]

The loudest voices in Rust that I know (pcwalton, steveklabnik, burntsushi, on HN for example) clearly acknowledge that Rust makes tradeoffs.

No one denies that there are "simpler ways to achieve memory safety". Stop-the-world garbage collection and reference-counting are exactly just that. Vale uses generational references, which, IIUC, has both memory and runtime costs when compared to the borrow checker.

[cthutu]

Some incorrect assumptions:

* Rust does not have slow compile times compared to C++. They are often faster. Linking tends to be the slow part. C++ compilation speeds suffer heavily from header files. * Lifetime semantics can be confusing in any language. In C++, you ignore it, you get crashes from dangling pointers. In Rust, you ignore it, you don't get it compiling - which forces you to think about them. The lifetime concerns are always present unless you're using a garbage-collected/reference-counted language.

My experience is that the Rust community is very tolerant and patient. Can you cite an example where a "loud evangelist" shames other people? Also, in my experience, when that happens they are criticised by the same Rust community.

[pdimitar]

Every single community has the 1% bad apples. As a Rust dev I refuse to be associated with zealots and fanatics. Every single other Rust dev I've ever worked with was a normal programmer, namely a pragmatic analytical type.

Stop parroting memes. "Rust evangelists strike force" and "Rewrite it in Rust" do not actually exist.

Point me at your local hobby or professional club and I bet my neck I'll find you at least one fanatic. But I will not use that to deride your hobby activity. So don't do that for Rust, please. The community is huge and doesn't subscribe under the fanaticism of a few loonies.