>> I don’t like the language and I do not want to see it continue to propagate through the software I use and want to control/edit/customize.

> This is how I feel about C/C++; I find Rust a lot easier to reason about, modify, and test, so I'm always happy to see that something I'm interested in is written in Rust (or, to a far lesser extent, golang).

You have to do better than "NO U" on this. The comparison to C/C++ is silly, because there is no way you're going to avoid C/C++ being woven throughout your entire existence for decades to come.

> I don't see why this ideological point should have any impact on whether a language is used or not. Clang/LLVM are also open-source, and I see no reason why GCC is better for these purposes than those.

I hope you don't expect people to debate about your sight and your imagination. You know why people choose the GPL, and you know why people are repulsed by the GPL. Playing dumb is disrespectful.

> don't portray your refusal to learn it as being somehow a negative for Rust.

But your sight, however, we should be discussing?

edit: I really, really like Rust, and I find it annoying that the clearest, most respectful arguments in this little subthread are from the people who just don't like Rust. The most annoying thing is that when they admit that they just don't like it, they're criticized for not making up reasons not to like it. They made it very clear that their main objection to its inclusion in Linux is licensing and integration issues, not taste. The response is name calling. I'm surprised they weren't flagkilled.