"There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses".<p>---<p>Glad to see fluffy negative articles about Rust shooting up the first slot of HN in 20 minutes. It means Rust has made finally made it mainstream :)<p>---<p>The points, addressed, I guess?<p>- Rust has panics, and this is bad: ...okay? Nobody is writing panic handling code, it's not a form of error handling<p>- Rust inserts Copy, Drop, Deref for you: it would be really annoying to write Rust if you had to call `.copy()` on every bool/int/char. A language like this exists, I'm sure, but this hasn't stopped Rust from taking off<p>- Fetishization of Efficient Memory Representation: ... I don't understand what the point is here. Some people care about avoiding heap allocations? They're a tool just like anything else<p>- Rewrite anything and it gets faster: okay sure, but there are limits to how fast I can make a Py/JS algorithm vs a compiled language, and Rust makes writing compiled code a bit easier. People probably aren't rewriting slow Python projects in C these days<p>- Rust is as complex as C++: ...no, it's not. Rust really hasn't changed much in the past 6 years. A few limitations being lifted, but nothing majorly new.<p>- Rust isn't as nice of community as people think: subjective maybe? People are nice to me at conferences and in discussion rooms. There's occasional drama here and there but overall it's been pretty quiet for the past year.<p>- Async is problematic: Async Rust really is fine. There's a huge meme about how bad it is, but really, it's fine. As a framework author, it's great, actually. I can wrap futures in a custom Poll. I can drive executors from a window event loop. Tokio's default choice of making `spawn` take Send/Sync futures is an odd one - occasionally cryptic compile errors - but you don't need to use that default.<p>I'm unsure why this article is so upvoted given how vapid the content is, but it does have a snappy title, I guess.