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).