I Hope Rust Does Not Oxidize Everything

Code is meant to be read, so a lot of people care actually.

Sure it's not the only thing that contributes to the usefulness and appeal of a language, but reading code is still one of the two main things we do with it so it's quite important to nail the syntax right.

This isn't the problem, the problem is "... and keep the syntax C++-like?".

You can't even mention that bootstrapping the compiler is a process that's way too convoluted, because you get buried to oblivion ("why would you need that"). Thankfully there are some already, though incomplete because (I'm guessing) Rust being mostly defined as "whatever rustc outputs" doesn't help reduce the pain of checking if your implementation is correct. I appreciate the efforts that are going on to write informal non-spec documentation about the language though, better than nothing.

Also can't mention that alternative compilers would be nice (e.g. to make bootstraping easier, see previous point), because you also get buried to oblivion ("don't fragment the ecosystem", "the Rust council/teams/etc will always be composed of trustworthy people now and forever").

Like, yes, but chill a bit and try to consider other use cases instead of reading those topics as attacks to the language just because you think you don't need them. A small minority being very loud in rejecting any attempt at healthy discussion is not good optics for the ecosystem.

This stuff also happens with other languages' communities, but somehow I seem to find them happening a lot more frequently with Rust.

(P.S.: Changing the topic a bit, I'll invoke Cunningham's Law and say there's no easy way to read Rust documentation offline that doesn't require a web browser of some kind or parsing HTML output. Some equivalent to `go doc` or Python's `help()` function.)

It feels like a mischaracterization of Rust and I strongly disagree. Both the language and tooling are designed from the beginning for interop with C code. It isn't very hard to do if you have tried it.

> ... unless you go unsafe and abandon most of the Rust advantages. That means most dependencies need to be re-implemented in Rust if you want to have all the advantages that Rust offers.

This 'Rust is useless if you use unsafe' is a stance that is well debunked, but still gets repeated like this. Ensuring safety using Rust semantics across an FFI with a language like C is impossible - making unsafe necessary. But just because you use unsafe doesn't mean that the language lost most of its advantages. In fact, almost every Rust program uses unsafe code, if you care to look at the code in the standard library. Yet, that never seems to be a problem.

What unsafe does is to cordon off a small code area where certain invariants have to be asserted manually, instead of relying on the borrow checker. You still get the safety for the rest of the code. In case you do get safety violations, there is much less code to debug. This is a significant advantage over languages like C++, considering that unsafe blocks are usually less than 5% of the code, even in the worst case. But to take it further, C libraries often have corresponding Rust wrapper libraries that create safe wrappers over C FFI calls. In addition to the small unsafe blocks to verify manually, these wrappers have the additional advantage of being widely used and debugged by a wider community. There are innumerable such wrappers on crates.io and it's uncharitable to accuse the language of NIH syndrome.