> Not sure why certain members of the Rust community aren't happy with just having a neat language. Saying this isn't going to do my karma any good, but it's a

> Not sure why certain members of the Rust community aren't happy with just having a neat language. Saying this isn't going to do my karma any good, but it's almost certainly because they're feeling competitive pressure from the even more numerous Go developers doing the exact same thing with their language. A lot of people feel like it's time to move on from C and C++, especially to something with better memory-safety properties. (This is for low-level infrastructure code, mostly. Other kinds of code have been better written in higher-level languages for a long time.) Rust developers/advocates feel that it has the best current answer to that need. They might even be right. Then they see the total deluge of Go propaganda, encouraging people to adopt what they feel is a less-good approach. They know that "just having a neat language" won't be enough to overcome that. Therefore, out of a completely laudable desire to help others avoid a mistake, they ratchet up their own rhetoric to match. Some get a bit carried away. If the goal is to discourage overly ardent advocacy for Rust, we also need to discourage the same for other languages as well - not just Go but also Swift, Erlang/Elixir, *ML, and so on. The pattern of people becoming tiresome about their choice of programming language (or paradigm) has existed for a long time.