I can't say I agree with the author's first article (which he mentions in this one), but I think he has the kernel of a good argument here. That's not to say I

I can't say I agree with the author's first article (which he mentions in this one), but I think he has the kernel of a good argument here. That's not to say I agree with it entirely. At some point "design by everyone" turns into "design by committee" by another name. This criticism of Rust has manifested itself in other ways, too. For example the amount of "unsafe" used in various crates (the idea being that "the community" will collectively minimize "bad" use of "unsafe"). In my view there's a tendency for some of Rust's advocates to simply assert that it will work itself out without presenting good reason to believe so.