[pdimitar]

Claiming without evidence that something is battle-tested while also claiming the competition is "trendy" does not help any argument you might be attempting to make.

I am trying to read your comments charitably but I am mostly seeing generalizations which makes it difficult to extract useful info from your commentary.

We can start by dropping dismissive language like "trendy" and "magic", "fashion" and "Rust kids". We can also continue by saying that "believing the borrow checker is some kind of magic" is not an interesting thing to say as it does not present any facts or advance any discussion.

What you "assure" us of is also inconsequential.

One fact remains: there are a multitude of CVEs that, if the program was written in Rust, would not happen. I don't think anyone serious ever claimed that logic bugs are prevented by Rust. People are simply saying: "Can we just have less possible bugs by the virtue of the program compiling, please?" -- and Rust gives them that.

What's your objection to that? And let us leave aside your seeming personal annoyance of whatever imaginary fandom you might be seeing. Let us stick to technical facts.

[danudey]

The objections I see against Rust and Rust rewrites of things remind me a lot of the objections I saw against Linux and Linux users by Windows users, and against macOS and macOS users by Linux users. Dismissive language and denegrating comments without any technical backing; assertions of self-superiority. "It's a toy", "it's not mature", "it's a worse version of blah blah", "my thing does stuff it doesn't do and that's important, but it does things my thing doesn't do and that's irrelevant".

Honestly it's at the point where I see someone complaining about a Rust rewrite and I just go ahead and assume that they're mouthing off about something because they think it's trendy and they think it's cool to hate things people like. I hate being prejudicial about comments but I don't have the energy to spend trying to figure out if someone is debating in good faith or not when it seems to so rarely be the case.

[pdimitar]

My impression is exactly the same. For multiple years now I keep seeing grandiose claims about "Rust fandom" and all I ever see in those threads are... the C people who complain about that Rust fandom that I cannot for the life of me find in a 300+ comments thread.

It's really weird, at one point I started asking myself if many comments are just hidden from me.

Then I just shrugged it off and concluded that it's plain old human bias and "mine is good, yours is bad" tribe mentality and figured it's indeed not worth my time and energy to do further analysis on tribal instinctive behaviour that's been well-explained in literature for like a century at this point.

I have no super strong feelings for or against Rust, by the way. I have used it to crushing success exactly where it shines and for that it got my approval. But I also work a lot with Elixir and I would rarely try to make a web app with Rust; multiple PLs have the frameworks that make this much better and faster and more pleasant to do.

But it does make me wonder: what stake do these people have in the whole thing? Why do they keep mouthing off about some imaginary zealots that are nowhere to be found?

[f33d5173]

Do zealots usually know that they're zealots? Food for thought.

[pdimitar]

I define somebody as a zealot by their expression. Fanaticism, generalizations, editorial practices like misconstruing with the goal of tearing down a straw men, and even others.

If you show me Rust advocates with comments like these I would be happy to agree that there are in fact Rust zealots in this thread.

[hitekker]

Generally, they don't. Zealotry is not specific to Rust, but you've reminded me of some moments in the 2020's edition of Programming Language Holy Wars™.

Like, one zealot stabbing at another HN commenter saying "Biased people like yourself don't belong in tech", because the other person simply did not like the Rust community. Or another zealot trying to start a cancel campaign on HN against a vocal anti-Rust person. Yet another vigorously denied the existence of Rust supremacism, while simultaneously raging on Twitter about Microsoft not choosing Rust for the Typescript compiler.

IMO, the sad part is watching zealots forget. Reality becomes a story in their head; much kinder, much softer to who they are. In their heads, they are an unbiased and objective person, whereas a "zealot" is just a bad word for a bad, faraway person. Evidence can't change that view because the zealot refuses to look & see; they want to talk. Hence, they fail the mirror test of self-awareness.

Well, most of them fail. The ones who don't forget & don't deny their zealotry, I have more respect for.

[pdimitar]

I fully stand behind my "Biased people like yourself don't belong in tech" statement from back then. If you follow the thread you'll see that this person mostly just wanted to hate. I tried to reason with them and they refused to participate.

I, or anybody else, owe them no grace beyond a certain point.

Where do you draw the line when confronted with people who already dislike you because they put you in a camp you don't even belong to but you still tried to reason with them to make them see nuance?

Skewing reality to match your bias makes for boring discussions. But again, I stand behind what I said then. And I refuse to be called a zealot. I don't even use Rust as actively; I use the right tool for the job and Rust was that on multiple projects.

If you're not interested in the context then please don't make hasty conclusions and misrepresent history. If you want to continue that old discussion here, I'm open to it.

EDIT: I would also love it if people just gave up the "zealot" label altogether. It's one of the ways to brand people and make them easier to hate or insult. I don't remember ever calling any opponent from the 'other side' a C/C++ zealot, for what it's worth. And again, if people want to actually discuss, I am all for it. But this is not what I have witnessed, historically.