I know, based on your very informative and large post history, that your point is surely more nuanced. But this just reads as any macros that are not Rust macro

I know, based on your very informative and large post history, that your point is surely more nuanced. But this just reads as any macros that are not Rust macros are wrong, even when they are very similar. I just do not understand the implied difference (and I have seen comments similar to this sentiment more than just this once). Rust has macros, both of the procedural and ‘syntax-case’ style. Semantically, AFAIK, they are true macros like in Racket or any other language with full meta-syntactic programming options. They are not better typed nor more resilient to errors, nor are they used less pervasively that other languages with macros. Why is it that Rust gets a pass, when other language receive the ‘Macros is bad’ treatment?