Comment by verdagon

Author here, I tried to make this article as balanced as possible, and even talked about Rust's advantages in concurrency and encouraging cleaner architectures and the disadvantages of MMM and GC approaches (plus other aspects, see my other comment down-thread about this).

There are actually 45 citations in the article on all angles, but I think you're talking specifically about the anecdotes.

Regarding the anecdotes, I had to add more of those to the borrow checking sections because it was the most surprising to my initial readers. Very little discussion online actually compares borrow checking to higher-level languages with good development velocity; most discussion online compares it to languages like C, C++, Javascript, or Python, so this was new to most readers.

The article also explicitly mentioned that those were anecdotes and colored them differently, so that people didn't mistake them as data.

They also made that part of the article much longer than it was originally.

I can see how that could come across as biased. Perhaps I should have added citations to the other parts of the article so their distribution was more uniform.

When you look at the content itself, it's pretty balanced I'd say (hence the focusing on the other benefits of borrow checking plus the downsides of GC), it's unfortunate that's not coming through as much.