IMHO that is just a soft touch, it's just saying there might be some areas where Rust isn't a good fit. What the article doesn't address is what the intrinsic c

IMHO that is just a soft touch, it's just saying there might be some areas where Rust isn't a good fit. What the article doesn't address is what the intrinsic costs of switching are, as opposed to what the article does address is that there are probably places where it doesn't have a good fit. In short the article doesn't address what new costs Rust might bring that are intrinsic to using Rust (as opposed to costs that are inherent in making a change to _any_ new language).