I used to wonder who these people are too, but I think they mostly aren't that visible or at least prominent in actual rust threads. But you do occasionally see drive-by posts in places like /r/cpp along the lines of "should I learn C++ and Rust?" along with a long list of why Rust is so much better than C++. I'd sour to Rust too, if that was my primary interaction with the "community".

> I'd sour to Rust too, if that was my primary interaction with the "community".

Yeah, understood. I think we both know Rust people face a lot of the same level of criticism. And I get it. It's no fun. However, I don't think the way forward is to present the worst possible form of the argument (a strawman, "Rust people think Rust solves all problems", or, a vibe level: us vs them, "Rust people are toxic").

If I wanted, I could rake some C++ people over the coals for being toxic right now, and not just re: Rust, because C++ has more than a few hard core jerks. But whataboutism is just not helpful. I'm more interested in something more substantive/constructive.

That’s fair. I’d be interested in that, too. I just don’t see it as something a certain group is interested in.

> "toxic", to me, is not well-meaning, generally positive people...

The self proclaimed intentions or excitement of people has no bearing on whether or not the environment they create is toxic.

I don't necessarily disagree. There can be a "toxic positivity". So, partially agree, but I think this side of the argument needs to be more fully fleshed out, and, if this is to be a serious criticism, I think the anti-Rust folks need to, for lack of a better word, lead, and be examples non-toxic behavior. Posting unserious vibe level HN comments is not leadership.

If group A creates a toxic environment and group B reacts (and potentially contributes to) the toxic environment, why would it fall upon group B to lead fixing the situation? Your disagreement aligns with victim blaming.

> If group A creates a toxic environment and group B reacts (and potentially contributes to) the toxic environment, why would it fall upon group B to lead fixing the situation? Your disagreement aligns with victim blaming.

I strongly disagree with this sentiment for lots of reasons. Most significantly, because who is to say who created the environment? This is a lesser form of debate sometimes used in American politics, and I'd prefer not to engage in it -- "Rs did Y first, so we Ds are completely justified in doing X."

Moreover, your characterization of anti-Rust folks as somehow "victims" is fundamentally ridiculous. Get a grip.

This isn't leadership. This is nursing resentment.

I have a theory that all new rust programmers either become evangelists or haters based on whether they are able to cross the borrow checker barrier or not.

I mean that isn't a terrible theory. Love and hate is often forged in an initial "I hate this." TBC I hated the borrow checker once too! My fear are the people who make these love/hate decisions based on vibes instead of experience. I'm perfectly okay with someone who tries Rust/Java/OCaml and says "Never for me. Not again." I'm less okay with these technical disagreements becoming more tribal. I think C vs. C++ is often tribal. Because I like Rust, I really hate the idea Rust opinions might be tribal too.

I agree with the sibling comment that your theory probably has some merit. However, it does leave out a class of individuals like me. I tried Rust, had no issue with the borrow checker. But I think that is because, IMO, using Rust is predicated on programming, and designing programs and algorithms, in the way Rust wants them designed. So, when using Rust I just accepted that my code needed to fit what Rust thinks is proper and will accept. There are plenty of other reasons not want to use Rust and to not want to see the language become the front runner in some sort of ‘race to replace’ other systems level languages. But I’m sure there are more knee-jerk reactions that become entrenched opinions than those opinions formed like mine.

There might be some merit to that, although it could just be the case that they just don't like the idea of a compiler telling them what they can and cannot do.

"Hey man, don't harsh my buzz. I want give out two mutable aliases to this underlying value. I know what I'm doing."

Narrator: He didn't know what he was doing.

Giving out two mutable aliases to an integer or struct holding integers is perfectly safe in C and C++ and JS and Java and Python... and perfectly safe in Rust if you hand out multiple &struct and mark each field as Cell<T> (just with painful syntax compared to any other imperative language in existence).