Do you mean the "this is where we're headed" comment? That's not agreeing with the direction.

Rust has many valid reason to critique for.

It's a functional-first language. Yes, you can opt out from it with constant let muts. But it is like that on purpose, to make it uncomfortable to write procedural code, so you're incentivized to use less variables. In fact, when I first heard about Rust, it advertized itself not through memory safety, but through the functional programming paradigm, and its evangelists called any kind of memory mutation a hazard, not just the out-of-bound kind. This also makes it extremely obtuse to write games with.

Calling Rust not a functional programming language is like calling Java not an object-oriented programming language, because you can still technically make procedural code with it, you only need to write packaging classes for your code, and still can set globals, via static. The existence of even harder OOP languages, where even the base types like integers are classes themselves could also be used to call Java "not an OOP language, but a general purpose language with OOP features".

It's also quite hard to opt-out from its memory safety features, resulting in a very ugly code. And evangelists like to trash-talk some of its memory safe competitors, like calling D not a memory safe language, because it's more of an opt-in feature.

However, thanks to Brian Lunduke and his anti-woke brainrot, all the critique we get is "code of conduct bad", "pronouns bad", "christian extremism masquerading as common sense good", "elitism and hierarchies good". Almost no critique of the language itself. Which is bad IMHO. (Can someone suggest me a substack-like place, where I can publish articles, and also not ran by nazis?)