The author is actually using it, to actually rewrite portions of C projects in it, and writing about their experience doing this in practice. For example, the linked paper is about using Rust at the I/O boundary in an existing, complex system.

Except that the article is actually just the feature sheet of Rust. I would rather the article had been a link to that paper.

uhhhhhh, multiple links in this block on the post:

"That’s because I have been working on this subject for a long time now:

* I did multiple talks on it * I even co-wrote a paper * I did it both as client and personal work"

Yes, I saw those links. The article that op linked to though was another Rust feature sheet blog post, though.

This was days ago, why do you care?

One of the reasons why I'm super hesitant of learning Rust is the attitude and emotional based opinions of the community. I picked up Python due to my work and I love it and I'd never think I would before trying it. But I also never in my travels seen Python people advertise it negative with "<somelang> SUCKS! FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE! GIT GUD AND USE PYTHONN!" about ANY widespread or niche language but instead they just keep positively gushing over Python: "how clear", "how succinct", "formatted by significant whitespace", "readable", "simple", "pythonic", "wide array of modules available", etc.

When someone in one message both recommends Rust and says that it's absolutely impossible to ever write correct programs in C or C++ that are more than few lines long what am I supposed to take away from that? Rust itself uses C++ written LLVM, is it unreliable too then? Seriously... And implicitly, anyone liking C or C++ is an idiot and a bad programmer.