I disagree that it's "just talking trash". Sure, I agree the tone of the article is overly harsh on the gcc-rs project, but it does raise some solid points that

I disagree that it's "just talking trash". Sure, I agree the tone of the article is overly harsh on the gcc-rs project, but it does raise some solid points that, for the stated goals of the project, the approach appear suboptimal. Every time gcc-rs comes up, the discussion always devolves to a "but there's rustc_codegen_gcc, why bother rewriting the language in C++", and I have yet to see a compelling argument why GCC-RS is indeed a superior solution, despite the many downsides. I think the answer is that it isn't necessarily a better solution, but the people with the necessary knowledge to make a gcc frontend or backend happen tend to be more familiar with C++, and so GCC-rs is actually the path of least resistance?