There was a prominent member of the software community arguing in the LWN thread that authors of compilers which don't statically reject use-after-free (presumably including C and Hare) should be held liable for the consequences of use-after-free errors. And I suspect this person doesn't think the rustc developers should be sued for bugs written in unsafe Rust. I would argue that this person, not Drew DeVault, is hitting out at others.
You're right, I do understand that. My issue is with Drew DeVault's blog linked at the top, which I quoted. My advice is that if someone is hitting out at you then reply with statements, evidence and not emotional hyperbolic language. As the chief of any project, you set the tone of the project and blog entries like this are counter-productive if one wishes to run a healthy community.
Tony Hoare stated that language creators should be responsible for the bugs that users of those languages create. Is Tony Hoare a rust evangelist, or a "moral crusader" ?
Such a policy would create a chilling effect on the creation of practical languages which don't refuse to compile unproven code (every language in wide use).
