> Maybe it wasn't your intent (I also could be reading this wrong), but I feel like throwing Rust under the bus here is unfair. I don't see how that was throwi

> Maybe it wasn't your intent (I also could be reading this wrong), but I feel like throwing Rust under the bus here is unfair. I don't see how that was throwing rust under the bus. I didn't even state my opinion, just the fact that it makes this performance for safety tradeoff (an unusual one since most hash tables do not attempt to protect against hash DOS attacks.) You can replace the hashing algorithm. The rust compiler does this. But most people don't fiddle with the default, which makes it a questionable decision in my books.