> compilation time is even worse than c++
That's highly dependent. C++ is pretty bad and I've seen quite a few codebases where the C++ is way worse than the equivalent of Rust.
> there are hidden allocations EVERYWHERE that you can't even control
That's simply not true. It's also a highly ironic statement given the tendency of C++ to have all manner of allocations all over the place (example--look at how many people implement their own String instead of using the STL one).
You can control the allocations in Rust, but you do have to do so explicitly. Agreed, this is more like C than C++.
> stop trying to push that narrative, it makes rust look bad
Yeah, I kind of agree with this in the game space.
There are a LOT of things that Rust does poorly within the gaming space.
Being able to efficiently transmute between equivalent types of memory (array of 4 bytes, an RGBA packed struct, and a uint32_t, for example) without losing performance is something Rust is really bad at.
Packed structs are poor. There really isn't a good set of idioms for GUIs. ECS seems like a bit of a hack to get around the inability to transmute types efficiently. etc.
Oddly, one space that Rust is gaining traction in the gaming space is the network communication layer. People are simply tired of debugging buffer overruns and have decided that they'd much rather have something different. And, since Rust can compile down to a library, it can be linked into the rest of your game and not interfere with your pipeline.
> just take a nap and move on, you are delusional
Hey! You don't need to be delusional to take a nap. You can like naps just fine without being delusional.