> I keep this bias voluntarily, because Rust is generally touted (hyped?) as a Silver Bullet, and I'm wary of Silver Bullets.

Hrm. We're not progressing on that front so maybe it's time to stop. But I don't think Rust is "touted as a silver bullet". Rust is simply better than many other languages if you have criterias X, Y and Z -- and it just so happens that those X, Y and Z are actually things that fix problems that exist quite often out there. This is not "touting".

Forgive the generalization but you do seem to belong to a group of people who get annoyed if others praise something and if they hear about it often. Granted, popularity is not a signal for quality (and we as senior techies should possess and practice this kind of critical thinking much more than many other people!) but this is also tech and I'd like to pretend that at least part of all decision-making processes are based on merits. ;)

I'll give you a non-tech example. "Game of Thrones" was hugely popular and I was acting seemingly like you do now -- I kept hearing about it so much that I actually made it a goal to NEVER engage with it.

Obviously that's a bit irrational, if not a bit damning for the person practicing such methods in their lives.

But again, in tech it's not exactly the same. If you keep hearing about Rust, then critical thinking and objectivity demand that you ask yourself why and assess it with a clear head and without bias.

You seem to claim to have (mostly) done so but reading into your seeming-rebeliousness against Rust, I have some doubts. Hence this call-out (and the thread between me and you itself).

> Yes, there's no zealotry here, and it's great, but I'm exposed to a wider community than HN people.

I understand, yet IMO you should make up your own mind and not get irritated just because something gains popularity.

Sometimes there are good reasons for the popularity. Now in my day work I am pissed that the languages I work with don't have sum types. :\ Fixes so many bugs...

> Current me knows everything about code, and my future me which inherits that code.

You are surely aware that is not enough unless you actively go out of your way to check how other people do things, right? But I won't pursue this further, I believe we're in agreement and only the degree of stuff is under question from my side.

> As a recovering grumpy, I'll do. I don't like to be bitter grampa (to be). I'm fine with the grampa part, but not with the bitter part.

Well that's all that I asked for really. Thanks.

> Of course, but I'm trying to incorporate the good practices I can use as a team of two (as aforementioned).

And one of them should IMO be: "when you need something that you'd write in C/C++ and it is not highly specialized (meaning no good Rust library support) then try writing it in Rust".

Several huge organizations came forward and said memory unsafety contributes to at least 70% of all zero-day vulnerabilities. Surely at this point being religiously fanatical about memory safety should be common sense, I'd think.

> My personal state of the art of this practice is at [1]

You didn't have to show me, appreciate it. I do like the well-commented code. But I'd definitely remark that a huge if/else should be broken down into two functions. Maybe the else clause even further -- talking about `if isInputFromPipe(logger)...` in `initFlags`. I'd like the code to tell me what is it doing, not describe it to me how it's doing (and I still don't know the "what" part while reading such code). But that kind of stems from Golang's imperative nature and not everyone wants to write code in mostly FP style. I get that.

> Same, no hard feelings here. I can say that you're good sport even, and I don't use this lightly. I enjoyed what you wrote and writing this comment.

It's important to disagree productively. :)