I hear what you're saying in this sub-thread. I will say that your "toy" comment didn't make it seem like you were interested in having a real discussion, but mostly just throwing shade, as they say. The whole comment has this vague undertone of "I am above this whole thing." This is probably why you're running into some difficulty. There's not just the crew that loves Rust, but also a very, very dedicated set of Rust haters, and it's really easy to bucket someone, incorrectly, into one or the other, based on initial impression.

One interesting thing in this comment, and why I chose to respond to it though, is it seems like what you want isn't just a description, but a specific kind of description from a specific kind of person. That is, it has to be "first-hand" but also not from someone who "sell[s] some product written in Rust." How can you get first-hand knowledge without building something? How can you demonstrate that that knowledge is legitimate without also letting people know that you have done that work? It seems impossible to me.

You're side stepping what I said. The point is people will downvote false facts, but rarely downvote opinions that do not have an underpinning of false facts.

Furthermore, you're lying. You've gotten tons of responses here as to why some people use Rust or like Rust, yet you then continue to spout that you want what you've already have gotten.

I didn't downvote you.

The thing is that your tone doesn't seem to come across a genuinely interested. It seems like you're just throwing uninformed opinions at people without leaving an opening for discussion.

For example, you talk about not wanting to throw away the C ecosystem. Instead, you could say, "What about all the great C libraries that we're never going to rewrite in Rust? Are Rust users throwing all that work away?"

And then someone would correctly inform you that the Rust community doesn't want to throw all that work away and has spent a ton of time on interop.