Honestly I used to find the "rust evgangelism strike force" obnoxious and naive, but man, after reading this thread and seeing all these brand new accounts that seemingly have nothing to do but complain because someone used Rust in a neat project, I'm honestly starting to think their attitude is 10x more obnoxious.

As we used to say, "haters gonna hate". It used to annoy me but now I mostly ignore it. If other people don't see the value in technical novelty that isn't directly in service of making money or having enormous impact otherwise, that's their loss - I'd rather spend my time hacking on something cool than defending the practice to someone who starts the conversation on the defensive.

Reimplementation relying on unsafe ‘C/C++’ code (as most of the core infrastructure is written in them) is done more for marketing especially among language aficionados.

Hope someone from Rust community can write something which can match some of the core software written in Go language, which has already proven its usefulness and quality in writing systems programs in networking and system infrastructure areas.

C/C++ replacement at this time is just a wishful thinking given Rust cannot work without C/C++ today, most useful crates will break if underlying C/C++ code is not maintained or updated.

> Reimplementation relying on unsafe ‘C/C++’ code (as most of the core infrastructure is written in them) is done more for marketing especially among language aficionados.

Let's read the page we are talking about to check your judgment:

"Project Goals: a pure-rust implementation of git including transport, object database, references, cli and tui"

and

"Non-Goals: replicate git command functionality perfectly"

Doesn't sound like they are relying on unsafe C/C++ code at all – and sounds like they are just doing it out of curiosity. Unless you mean that parts of the git infrastructure (beyond this project) use C/C++ and therefore as long as you don't rewrite everything at once, their effort remains meaningless, which would be quite a dire world view, so I am assuming you mean something different which I don't get atm.

This wasn't about Rust – it was about you making quite vague claims about somebody's project. I don't know you, but I do write software myself and know how easy unfounded claims can go haywire. So before critiquing the work of someone else I'd rather make sure the points I make are true, actually something the person I critique could have avoided and adequate to the level of the project (e.g. a hobbyist should receive milder criticism than a big organization).

So if you are claiming there is C/C++ in the dependencies – therefore the project must not be a true scottsman and should not have been written – so if you put the burden of proof on the other side, maybe it is time for you to look into the mirror, and ask yourself whether your opposition to a simple programming language is not a bit... irrational..?

If a innocent project like this one makes you use that kind of rhetorical moves consider the possibility that this says more about you than about the thing you are commenting on.

There's valid criticism of Rust and then there's what you are doing, which feels distinctly like flat-earthism of computer science. You pick arbitrary goal posts (like, pretending that "unsafe" isn't a keyword in "real rust") and try use that to discredit a language that a lot of people have found super useful and superior in their work.

Replacing the underlying C/C++ code (including the kernel) is a work in progress. Not everything happens all at once.

I'm not talking about this project in particular. More about what will happen to the general C ecosystem.