> I've seen an order of magnitude more people complaining about Rust evangelists as I've actually seen Rust evangelists, and they've been significantly more hostile and toxic.

Does this, to you, look like a response that is welcoming to C++ devs? I gave careful and impassive reasons, and you strike back with literal ad hominem attacks.

This sort of reply is what makes Rust, as a community, look shallow-minded and toxic.

You said Rust evangelists are toxic and exaggerating. I said that I've seen the more of the same in the other direction, and I'm the one striking back with literal ad hominem, and "shallow-minded and toxic"? My response isn't all that difference in tone and content to your own comment, but you've come back way harder at me personally than I was being in general.

The headlines these days are definitely hostile, though. C++ is unsafe, a legacy language, etc.

Look and you shall find. Third comment from the top: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34741241

That jumble of ideas is a good example of the arrogance directed not only at C++ programmers, but also Golang and C.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm just saying I've seen way more griping about Rust evangelists than I've seen actual Rust evangelists. For every crazy Rust post like that, I've seen at least 5 of people complaining about crazy rust posts like that. I've seen plenty of articles with comments crapping on Rust evangelists when they weren't even in the comments at all.