A lot of the commenters don't seem to understand the thrust of this paper. First, the use of "considered harmful" here is tongue-in-cheek or at least self-aware

A lot of the commenters don't seem to understand the thrust of this paper. First, the use of "considered harmful" here is tongue-in-cheek or at least self-aware. Second, the point of the paper is not to say that rewriting in Rust is bad, but to propose a safer approach to incremental rewrites that addresses (what the authors argue is) the risk of introducing new bugs at the C/Rust boundary.