This article is a bit all over the place, and the basic premise is not very good.<p>The Andrei guy says that Rust places too much emphasis on &quot;clerical&quot; memory management. This is not like a person who learned PHP from a couple w3schools article deciding that Lisp is &quot;weird&quot;. The criticism is not that Rust is &quot;weird&quot; or somehow unintelligible, it&#x27;s a direct critique of the language designers&#x27; choices.<p>This is the danger of using rules like the Blub paradox, you have to be careful or everyone who doesn&#x27;t agree with you or doesn&#x27;t like what you like is a Blub-programming dullard.<p>I actually do think there is something to the paradox, I would even say I have occupied different parts of that &quot;ladder&quot; myself. (That is, I&#x27;d like to think I&#x27;m higher on it now than I used to be.) But maybe JS programmers aren&#x27;t interested in type-checking in their JS precisely <i>because</i> they prefer JS for its dynamically-typed nature. This is as opposed to someone coming to JS from a different language and bringing their preference for strong typing with them.<p>Then the author goes on to talk about a bunch of stuff that does nothing to explain Rust&#x27;s apparent emphasis on memory. It&#x27;s pretty much just a list of why Rust is cooler and better than C++. That&#x27;s fine but none of it addresses the point made at the outset.