That is true. And as the post mentions, Daniel did decide to allow some Rust into the tree, years after he wrote that post. Sometimes people change their mind. It's often a good thing!
Changing your mind is great! I do support, Daniels choice to do what ever he wants in what ever language. My statement was not against Rust, It was against the idea that software development is done by writing think peaces online.
I refer you to the Linux Kernel mailing list FAQ 15-6, that I think makes my point:
It is true that code can convince, but often, the written word matters too.
For example, the Linux kernel is considering accepting Rust in tree. While that is predicated on people writing the code and demonstrating its value, even getting to that point has required a lot of communication and convincing. It is often considered polite in open source projects to attempt to build some consensus before sending large patches upstream.
Sure, but what the author of this article is arguing is that someone who has spent a lot of time and effort making something should throw all that work in the trash, and start over, because they did it wrong, I dint think that is either polite or constructive.
That is true. And as the post mentions, Daniel did decide to allow some Rust into the tree, years after he wrote that post. Sometimes people change their mind. It's often a good thing!