There was a good thread a couple months ago from someone who likes rust, but didn't like writing his game engine in rust.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40172033

Probably the best example I can think of off the top of my head is "Leaving Rust gamedev after 3 years", which got a fair bit of (positive!) attention both on HN [0] and on /r/rust [1]. If you look through the comments there a huge proportion of them generally agree with the article, and the top comment explicitly calls it "a good article". On /r/rust Josh Triplett (one of the Rust devs) has the top comment on the post basically acknowledging that the criticisms are valid/reasonable and thanking the author for their feedback [2].

I've seen other criticisms spawn good discussions and/or a good number of people agreeing, but nothing quite as clearly on point as that off the top of my head.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40172033

[1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/1cdqdsi/lessons_learn...

[2]: https://old.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/1cdqdsi/lessons_learn...

> I wonder why?

The whole point of Rust is memory safety and security, but I don’t care too much about either of them. I mostly work on offline desktop apps. When I do work on network exposed servers, I use C# which delivers even better safety and security for a reasonable performance overhead.

In pursue of that memory safety, Rust sacrificed pretty much everything else.

The language is incredibly hard to learn. The compiler is even slower than C++. It’s hard to do R&D in Rust because memory safety forces minor changes into large refactors. The recent push to async/await is controversial, to say the least.

It’s impossible to implement any non-trivial data structures in safe Rust. In my line of work designing data structures is more important than writing executable code, because the gap between RAM bandwidth and processor performance have been growing for decades now.

Also, interesting post and discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40172033