I think we're differing on semantics.
> it would naturally be to get the advertised benefits of the language
I think "naturally" is doing a lot of work here; this is not "for the sake of using Rust", it's to gain the benefits of the language.
> it would naturally be to get the advertised benefits of the language
I think "naturally" is doing a lot of work here; this is not "for the sake of using Rust", it's to gain the benefits of the language.
Speculating: I think many Rust rewrite projects are criticised under “for the sake of it” when in fact there is a clear decision that Rust is just a better choice in 2019 (i.e. the decision was not political, but the criticism assumed it was). Many of those will nonetheless peter out because forks are hard. Such a result is only a partial judgement on the original decision.
Yes, I think that's true as well.