> > I think the safety aspect of Rust appeals to a lot of beginning programmers.
> Is that a bad thing?
The appeal to beginners is fine, maybe even a good thing, but the condescending comments from beginners is a lot like listening to a teenager who thinks they know everything.
> What makes you feel like anyone's looking down their noses at you?
There're are no shortage of obnoxious comments from beginning Rust users here and on Reddit. If you can't see them, it might be because you're aligned with that point of view.
A recent one implied the whole world is going to end because of Heartbleed-like exploits. Don't they realize that despite the occasional high profile exploits, the world is generally running just fine? Don't they realize that the OpenSSL developers would've probably used pools of dirty memory to avoid allocation costs and unsafe blocks to avoid bounds checking had they developed that code in Rust? They got bit by sloppy optimization, and Rust isn't immune to that. I really wish people weren't so afraid of everything that achieving safety is their primary goal.
> Just because safety isn't a priority for you doesn't mean that the people for whom it is a priority are suddenly pretentious.
It's not pretentious if you make your own decision for your own project. It's not even pretentious to spread the good word and say how much you like Rust. It is very pretentious and condescending when you say something like in Graydon's article: """When someone says they "don't have safety problems" in C++, I am astonished: a statement that must be made in ignorance, if not outright negligence."""
Are you going to stand by that sentence? You probably should, because the newbies will love you for it, and it might help increase adoption of your language. It really shouldn't matter if you alienate a few of us old-timers who really don't have safety problems in C++.
To be clear, I like Rust. I've been following it for years, and I'm disappointed that it's not an adequate replacement for C++ (which I really don't like).