Thoughts and clarifications

Huh? Why would I want to silence them? And what does opinion being claimed (nevermind "held") have to do with anything?

Language holy war is an art form. When done right, it can be subtle and highly amusing to watch, but that kind of move is just plain wrong at this stage. Overwrought rhetoric in the first part would be about right for a retort deep in a subthread that has already devolved into a pure exchange of insults; here it's in the wrong place. And appending to that a paragraph of stock praises to $OBJECT_OF_WORSHIP is always a faux pas, especially when execution is so uninspiring - stylistic mismatch is awful.

Objections had been about the style, not the "contents"; I thought I made that very clear, but apparently that didn't come through
well enough. As for the alleged contents... do we really need to discuss that, starting with the equivalent of "I ate a fruit and I know how awful do they taste"? Not to mention the expression "$LANGUAGE mindset", which is a shining example of the same fallacy...

Language is not an identity. It's a tool. "$X is written in C" covers a huge range of styles/degrees of cleanliness/etc. So does "$X is written in Rust"; those ranges overlap a whole lot and as for the factors in cost of modifications... C vs Rust is really, really minor compared to the variability among C programs and variability among Rust ones. I will not insult the poster by assuming they are too ignorant to realize that, and that's precisely what taking the first part at the face value would imply.

I'm all for taking the piss out of self-righteous cretins who blather about immense superiority/inferiority of languages; as I said, language holy wars can be highly amusing, especially if aforementioned cretins get maneuvered into exposing their ignorance in their $OBJECT_OF_WORSHIP. As long as editors' requests to stop a subthread that goes in direction unacceptable for lwn.net get promptly honoured, I see no problem with that. But for pity sake, do that in style...