Putting aside the drama, there's a hint in here that understanding Rust lifetimes can make you a better C programmer.

If rust has made a bunch of existing lifetime bugs in the C clear, how about fixing said bugs in the C, and thus also having a surrounding environment in which rust is willing to compile?

One wonders if the lifetime handling is actually fine and easily expressed in C, but doesn't compile in rust though.

This is a rust problem, and it's also an anything popular problem.

There are persistent dedicated vocal & aggressive haters of systemd, containers, pulse audio & less so PipeWire, Kubernetes, JavaScript, node.js, rust, and many many other not-entirely-bad things.

I have a theory that the persistent haters are also almost always unable to show nuance. They can't talk to upsides in their discussion. They can't acknowledge limits or extents of their arguments. Being anti-whatever seems consuming. Most people are capable of more nuance, but it's the unnuanced self-polarising people who will stick around & just never shut up, never miss an opportunity to crap a space up with the most biased slanted negative views.

Personally, I just wish it was visible when someone comes along and says something negative, but has said like 100 other negative things in the past three months. We don't see that context when we run into vehement opinions, and that ability to do damage so persistently so actively should at least have some visibility to it.

From the post:

> A subset of C kernel developers just seem determined to make the lives of the Rust maintainers as difficult as possible. They don't see Rust as having value and would rather it just goes away.

> When I tried to upstream the DRM abstractions last year, that all was blocked on basic support for the concept of a "Device" in Rust. Even just a stub wrapper for struct device would be enough.

> That simple concept only recently finally got merged, over one year later.

[flagged]