Comparing a language using garbage collection to one tackling the hard problem of providing memory safety without it doesn't make much sense. Rust is a low-level systems programming language while Go is in a different niche. If you don't need a low-level language, don't use Rust.
"If you don't need a low-level language, don't use Rust." is far different than saying "don't use Rust". If you need a low-level language, use Rust. If you don't, use a high-level language offering more productivity, less friction and quicker development turnaround times.
Using the correct tool for the job is one of the most important skills for a programmer. There is no need to have one true language that's best for every possible usage. Different programming languages are designed around different compromises based on targeting different niches.
there are plenty of programmers who don't actually need a low-level programming language who are choosing rust for its other very good properties and i don't know how productive it is to say that they're wrong (1/2)
Sorry, I'm a dingus, let's try that again:
There are plenty of programmers who don't actually need a low-level programming language, but are choosing Rust for its other very good properties. I don't know how productive it is to say that they're wrong.
I don't see how it's productive to bash Rust because you misunderstand the entire purpose of the language and that it's completely designed around being a low level language. As I said, it reflects badly on you for your ignorance rather than the language.
What are you talking about? Your initial tweet shows you're completely ignorant of the language and are missing the point. The follow-up discussion reinforces that especially how you talk about GC as a magical wand able to make it easier to use while preserving the core language.