I know the people and the company behind this article. They do anything but "hate on Rust".

You could've deduced that from the fact that someone who puts this amount of energy in a detailed article about intricacies of an area of "foo", quite certainly does not "hate on foo".

It's more that I and people I know love Rust, and enjoy it, and want it to be better. I want it to be relentlessly optimized.

You realize this article talks about Rust on embedded hardware specifically, where you don’t have threads or big runtimes? There is no hate going on here either, just attempts to make things better. Might I suggest you click through to the homepage and I think you’ll figure out the rest.

I _love_ Rust and use it whenever I can. I still find the comments in here to be quite appropriate. Async Rust leaves me with a (subjective!) feeling that something isn't quite right. Not that I know how it _should_ be, but that feeling is very different from the non-async parts of the language that almost always leaves me with a warm fuzzy feeling of joy.

I don't know enough about the domain to be objectively helpful, so it's all wishy-washy feelings on my part. I keep reaching for orchestrating things with threads in Rust where most people would probably reach for async these days. The only language where I've felt fine embracing the blessed async system is Haskell and its green threads (which I understand come with their own host of problems).

That's a bit rich given the abuse that Rust evangelists dish out to every other language in the world.

Nobody seriously tries to run Golang or Java on an MCU. But they do run Rust code.