Earlier quoted context omitted.
>the people comfortable with the language are all the ones that don't know about the problems. Or the ones writing code where security doesn't matter, like HFT and video games (the former have no users, and the latter are basically impossible to make crack-resistant even if they're written entirely in Rust).
It's not only security, it's correctness. It's about your software staying running and doing the right thing. I can believe HFT developers think they don't need it.
Second, HFT developers are using very expensive FGPAs to do trading with network packets. People are quick to reach to some example where their favorite toy is used at some organization, but that's besides the point. The tools for getting code on those FPGAs is horrible and unless Xilinx adopts Rust internally I doubt much will change. Rust can be adopted elsewhere, but that's not what's making the organization money. HFT folks are not persuaded even slightly by these arguments about security and correctness. Jane Street is not a HFT firm and they will gladly tell you that.
It helps immensely to understand ones concerns, constraints, and values before assuming they're identical and them swiftly demonizing anyone that dissents. The Rust community really has done itself a massive disservice in alienating everyone that doesn't conform to its monoculture composed mostly of amateurs and unemployable extremists.
Of course, this will simply be downvoted by the pathetic and unimpressive. Nobody views this as an opportunity to even try disputing the argument or use it as a legitimate data point that Rust should strive for. They simply want obedience and mindlessness in the monoculture because they lack the tools needed to handle conflict of any kind. It's also why so many features are perpetually stuck as nightly rather than stable. The project does nothing but stultify talent into leaving for genuine innovation.