That is pretty common in low level domains. Rust instead comes with complexity of borrowck and lifetimes management no matter how rustaceans say it is second nature.
Rewrite it in rust is not mature reaction from rust community. It is similar to arch linux btw boys you see in Linux communities.
And GP is right, you rust folk talk as if sum types are silver bullet. And you people also talk as if rust invented sum types (though you people don't imply it).
You folks talk as if cargo is the best package management solution that exist.
You folks talk as if web of hundreds of dependencies written by enthusiastic youngsters is not a problem for a language priding itself on safety properties (the attempts like crev don't get the attention they deserve).
You folks talk like the memory management overhead of rust is not a problem for creating average CRUD webshit.
You folks talk as if rust automatically guides you towards correct programming patterns, when that is out of necessity to facilitate static memory management. The business logic is not at fault here, neither is rust.
Some folks in the rust community frequently bring virtue signalling politics into programming language related medium.
Rust is a well designed systems language and deserves appreciation for bringing Ada / Cyclone / ATS' good parts as a usable language. But the community is ruining its image.
Most of the world doesn't run fine. The manager who was previously an accountant can't see the benefits of reliability, security or performance, and hires some straight-out-of-the-bootcamp people.
How many actually try to reproduce the results by writing corresponding code themselves? Apparently lot of papers with slightly wrong findings because code errors have passed the peer review (all of us in the SWE bubble know how often bugs occur), at least in less prestigious journals.
There is nothing wrong with mandating the code to be supplied with the paper. Because, many time code is somewhere between the experimental setup and proof / result.
