> All in all, it remains true that Rust doesn't really provide any safety above C++ in regard to writing these kinds of node-based data structures
Debatable. It certainly does for the consumers of these structures, and data structures are consumed a lot more often than they are rewritten.
> Yes, Rust has some downsides and tradeoffs. Is it so bad to just say that out loud?
Of course not. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't expect some pushback if you're incorrectly describing those tradeoffs.
Is it really so bad to say "at the end of the day, the difficulty of complex graphs in safe Rust is symptomatic not of a flaw in Rust but of how hard it is to build these things without memory errors even in C or C++" out loud?
Debatable. It certainly does for the consumers of these structures, and data structures are consumed a lot more often than they are rewritten.
> Yes, Rust has some downsides and tradeoffs. Is it so bad to just say that out loud?
Of course not. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't expect some pushback if you're incorrectly describing those tradeoffs.
Is it really so bad to say "at the end of the day, the difficulty of complex graphs in safe Rust is symptomatic not of a flaw in Rust but of how hard it is to build these things without memory errors even in C or C++" out loud?