Echelon's comment was "We shouldn't be using unwrap() or expect() at all. [...] unwrap(), expect(), bad math, etc. - this is all caused by lazy Rust developers". Even in my most generous interpretation I can't see how that is anything except a rejection of all unwraps (and equivalent constructs like expect()).

I fully agree with burntsushi that echelon is taking an extreme and arguably wrong stance. His sentiment becomes more and more correct as Rust continues to evolve ways to avoid unwrap as an ergonomic shortcut, but I don't think we are quite there yet for general use. There absolutely is code that should never panic, but that involves tradeoffs and design choices that aren't true for every project (or even the majority of them)

The commenter also said:

> We shouldn't be using unwrap() or expect() at all.

So the context of their comment is not some specific nuanced example. They made a blanket statement.

> Note that they're not criticizing the language. I read "Rust developers" in this context as developers using Rust, not those who develop the language and ecosystem.

I have the same interpretation.

> I think it's reasonable to question the use of unwrap() in this context. Taking a cue from your blog post^ under runtime invariant violations, I don't think this use matches any of your cases. They assumed the size of a config file is small, it wasn't, so the internet crashed.

Yes? I didn't say it wasn't reasonable to question the use of unwrap() here. I don't think we really have enough information to know whether it was inappropriate or not.

unwrap() is all about nuance. I hope my blog post conveyed that. Because unwrap() is a manifestation of an assertion on a runtime invariant. A runtime invariant can be arbitrarily complicated. So saying things like, "we shouldn't be using unwrap() or expect() at all" is an extreme position to carve out that is also way too generalized.

I stand by what I said. They are factually mistaken in their characterization of the use of unwrap()/expect() in general.