The problem is that most people criticising Rust don't make the case very well. If you want to read good critique, I'd recommend this - https://matklad.github.io/2020/09/20/why-not-rust.html. This post up-to-date, succinct and objective.
And most pertinently, this critique was written by someone who genuinely loves programming in Rust. Shows you that Rust users aren't blinded to the faults of the language. You shouldn't think that Rust users are fanboys just because you see push back to low effort, low knowledge critiques.
> You shouldn't think that Rust users are fanboys just because you see push back to low effort, low knowledge critiques.
That's too much assuming, btw I read in this thread a comment from a well-known Nim dev working in multithreading (with much knowledge on the subject) and it was downvoted to oblivion.
> And most pertinently, this critique was written by someone who genuinely loves programming in Rust.
That is putting the bar impossible high. I would expect most of the criticism to come from people who hate to program in Rust, which it is fine as long as the criticism is well argued.
You've got the contrapositive there. The claim was that folks who love Rust do not accept criticism of the language. Therefore, a criticism by someone who loves the language was presented, to show that claim was false. Your parent isn't saying that only folks who love Rust can criticize Rust.
Point A: The claim was that folks who love Rust do not accept criticism of the language.
Point B: a criticism by someone who loves the language was presented, to show that claim was false.
Point B does not contradict point A at all. That is like saying that is false I cannot accept criticism because , hey, look at the weak points I have and I gladly mention("I am too perfectionist","I work too hard", "I put the wellness of the company ahead of myself")
I'm not putting the bar high. I'm giving an example of people who love Rust criticising Rust. Person I replied to claimed that Rust fanboys didn't do this because they were zealots. That's not true, clearly.
I've read a lot of criticism of Rust and most of it is from people who tried it for a weekend, couldn't understand the borrow checker and wrote some low quality criticism of it. If someone points out problems in that post, they are accused of zealotry and fanboyism.
Read the post I linked. It covers all the issues and makes the strongest possible case against the language. Then tell me if you've ever seen one that is as negative, accurate and succinct as that one.
> I'm not putting the bar high. I'm giving an example of people who love Rust criticising Rust. Person I replied to claimed that Rust fanboys didn't do this because they were zealots. That's not true, clearly
But that was OP's point.If your best example of Rust lovers accepting criticism of the language is the existence of a critical article written by a Rust lover, that does no say anything. The bar is naively high if the best example you got of tolerance to criticism was a critical article made by a member of the "tribe". The implicit point is that those kind of articles will be the ones playing "soft ball" with the language,so any perceived tolerance to criticism is almost meaningless.
And most pertinently, this critique was written by someone who genuinely loves programming in Rust. Shows you that Rust users aren't blinded to the faults of the language. You shouldn't think that Rust users are fanboys just because you see push back to low effort, low knowledge critiques.