> It could compile and still have 10,000 logic errors.
It could. Switch that to C or C++ and the amount of logic bugs is likely going to triple.
> Rust is not a major advance over C/C++, only an incremental and quite limited one, [...]
"Nothing ever happens." I guess you could consider borrow checking, an actual module system, type classes, enum variants, compiler-integrated macros, async/await, etc. to be just small increments. (Theoretically, you can reimplement most of this in C++, like std::variant, but they don't integrate well into the language - having to declare a type just to use std::visit is certainly not as simple as using match).
> [...] which will require decades of rewriting perfectly good code to gain its dubious benefits, in the process introducing numerous other errors.
"Introducing numerous other errors"? Would be interesting to see an citation on that. From what I've seen, these "new errors" were already present in the original "perfectly good code", except the original also had instances of undefined behavior and logic errors from poor type modeling.
> But don't take my word for it [...]
Why would anyone other than your friends take your word? You could have substantiate your claims with actual evidence.
> [...] after the hype has worn off [...]
Which already did. Nowadays, I see more posts about Zig and Fil-C.
>[...] left with the sad mess that is Rust.
I went to read your comment history to see if you elaborated on this "sad mess" of Rust, but you didn't. How about you do it here?