Then please enlighten us and tell us what you feel the article is about rather than a snarky "rtfm" comment.

Because I started reading. I got pretty far, and it was _still_ talking about integer types. The article is very long, and I gave up, not having any idea why I should keep reading. So saying the article isnt about them "at all" is wrong. Maybe, the int type thing is an intro to some other thing? But thats a long intro. So, tl;dr, at least not all the way. Why don't you tell us the point so we have desire to actually read it.

Conveniently, there's a table of contents at the start that hints at the later topics:

  Different kinds of numbers
  Conversions and type inference
  Generics and enums
  Implementing traits
  Return position
  Dynamically-sized types
  Storing stuff in structs
  Lifetimes and ownership
  Slices and arrays
  Boxed trait objects
  Reading type signatures
  Closures
  Async stuff
  Async trait methods
  The Connect trait from hyper
  Higher-ranked trait bounds
  Afterword

So 17 sections, 16 technical (excluding the Afterword) and only the first two focus on the int/float stuff. So to answer your question:

> Maybe, the int type thing is an intro to some other thing?

No, it's not an intro, it's just the first two sections.

> I hope I was able to show, too, that I don't consider Rust the perfect, be-all-end-all programming language. There's still a bunch of situations where, without the requisite years of messing around, you'll be stuck. Because I'm so often the person of reference to help solve these, at work and otherwise, I just thought I'd put a little something together. [emphasis mine]

As you can also see from the table of contents at the top of the article page, it goes through a great breadth of topics. And you can use that table of contents to jump to the afterword.

Since you don't seem to have commented on the article without reading it, my comment was not addressed to you. I'm not the article police; if you find something too long to read, decide not to read it, and move on with your life, we have no quarrel.

Honestly, I don't even mind the folks who do comment without reading. Comments are free, do what you like. I just find it mildly hilarious that 100% of the comments are about (the first) 3% of the article.

Reading all of it is a big ask for a blog post that is this long

Then why bother commenting?

I don't understand the urge to comment on something one hasn't read.

I did read the beginning of the article and I wasn't too impressed. So I went through the comments, looking for bits of wisdom that might hint reading the whole article was worth it. Still, I wasn't impressed.

I see multiple people commenting on why they didn't read the whole thing, which is a perfectly valid topic of conversation.

It is categorically about integer/numeric types in part. Why do you feel that "at all" is an appropriate qualifier?