Its just amusing, in this thread everyone with critical thinking and skeptical is down voted, even if one expresses himself moderately. It shows how much of zealots, Rust fanboys have become.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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")
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.
I have a number of specific critiques of Rust, chief being that APIs and implementations are bound too tightly. &[String] and &[&str] are logically similar but changing from one to the other in your implementation might mean a breaking API change.
fn func (slice: &[impl AsRef<str>]) {
// ...
}* I was thinking return values.
* Also you can't use that style in an enum definition if you want to return a custom enum.
You can use impl Trait in returns, this is actually one of the reasons why that feature exists.
And yes, you can use generics in an enum.
Ownership, mutability, and thread-safety are not easy to abstract over and hide as implementation details in Rust.
It's a side effect of the fact that Rust actually cares about these and checks them strictly, but for users coming from eg Java that's a bit of a shock.