> there are a lot of drive-by rust critics who spout of stuff they've read that plainly haven't really tried using rust themselves;
I haven't come across this so much. More the kind of YA male philosophy undergrad types (of all ages & genders) which tech in general and Rust in particular seems to attract. These people just like to argue. A lot. In interminable screeds, often on the Rust user forum.
The attitude is certainly more loud than universal. Many of the most thoughtful (and helpful) Rust insiders recognise the language's difficulty. The Rust Foundation certainly does, to the point that making Rust more tractable to learners is one of its current stated goals.
> I think it'd be a shame for other people in my shoes to not even explore the possibility
Rust's current cultural kudos in dev circles is such that I don't believe this is really a factor. Many want to try it. It's more that Rust is just difficult for many to actually work with. I don't mean 'learn' in the absolute beginner sense. There's no shortage of excellent and generously accessible materials (the Rust Book amongst others). They're not that difficult to get through. But many find that once they've got a minor grasp on the whole language, it's just a real slog to get anything substantial done with it. Getting through all the Rustlings doesn't mean you can get anywhere near writing real software at a motivating pace. This is certainly my experience, and that of all the pro devs I personally know who have started to learn Rust, all of whom (other than me) have dropped out in frustration. All of whom (including me) have by the way learned and used many other languages without the same troubles.
Pretending (or passively-aggressively asserting in response, as so many do) that Rust is easy does nothing other than (truthfully or not) trumpet the abilities of the arguer.
My guess is there are many factors at play. Some of it may be attachment on the part of those who have clearly exerted great efforts to learn Rust, and perceive assertions that Rust is difficult to be negative criticism (often wrongly). Partly it's the argumentative immature adults that tech fields so often attract. We all know them. It's my guess that Rust, being more towards the techy end of that spectrum, does so particularly (I don't know if this is equally true for C/C++). Partly it might be Rust's self-conscious inclusiveness: a positive in itself, like many similar ideals it can lead to aggressive denial when more clung to as an identity than pursued on as an aspiration.
There you go. My interminable screed. Maybe I would fit into the Rust 'community' after all.