I faced really strong criticism lately for criticizing (in the context of C++) a Safe C++ proposal that basically copies Rust into C++. With all good and bad t

I faced really strong criticism lately for criticizing (in the context of C++) a Safe C++ proposal that basically copies Rust into C++. With all good and bad things this entails. It seems there is a push from some people (that I hope it is not successful in its current shape, I personally find it a wrong approach) to just bifurcate C++ type system and standard library. More context here if you are curious: https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1g41lhi/memory_safety_without_lifetime_parameters/ https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/1g41lhi/memory_safety_... What I found a lot of is literally, intellectual dishonesty in some of the arguments to push in that direction. Not that it is not a possible direction, but claims like: "there is no other way", "it is the only feasible solution", etc. without exploring other alternative, from which Swift/Hylo value semantics/subscripts (subscripts is basically controlled references for mutation without a full borrow checker) and adding compile-time enforced law of exclusivity semantics without a new type system are possible (and better, IMHO) alternatives... well, you can see the thread. There seems to be a lot of obsession as "the only right way is the Rust way" and everything else is directly discardable by authors and some people supporting them. I think there are a lot of strong feelings there.