Most of the author's points here derive from the fact that C has been around for nearly 50 years and Rust a mere 8. This post should really be titled "Rust is not a good C replacement _right now_".

Yes, Rust still has a long way to go to be the right tool for all the things you can do with C today, but that doesn't make it less. It clearly has benefits when writing concurrent and safe code. You pay for this with a learning curve, but the Rust team has been shaving this curve down through better tooling and documentation for the past few years.

> Yes, Rust is more safe. I don’t really care. In light of all of these problems, I’ll take my segfaults and buffer overflows.

I suspect that for the author's work, these things may not matter much. But to a programmer working on any software where security is paramount (many web infrastructure pieces), this feature is golden.

I expect that as Rust matures, we'll see a solidified spec, competing implementations, and expanded build tooling. C has a long head-start, not to acknowledge that is just wrong.