Ah yes, the "* Considered Harmful" tradition in computer science. A tradition so widespread that it has even wrapped around upon itself and yielded the "'Considered harmful' considered harmful" paper.

Not the best start already. Hmm, written by 'Anonymous Authors'. So is this supposed to be a joke? Is the implication that speaking out against rust makes you the target of unjust persecution? Is it written by people known to have an axe to grind?

Abstract: This is a free-verse poem setting up a rust advocate strawman. Do such people exist on the internet? Yes. But time cube also exists on the internet.

Introduction: Incrementally rewriting a C/C++ system in rust is bad because FFI can have problems. Which can be simplified with a different spin to be, "C/C++ are so bad that they contaminate even the mighty rust."

It feels like the paper might have some good information that would be useful to people who want to augment their codebases with rust. However, it starts off so combative, that I don't think I could seriously recommend anyone actually read it. Maybe just skip the abstract and intro and see what you get out of it?