That's... interesting.
Most of the gripes about Go could've been apparent before a single line was written, with just some preliminary research. The packaging issues are valid for 2016, even though they are now resolved with Go modules.
Then the rewrites in ClojureScript, Elixir, and now Rust... Sheesh. All this tells me is that the authors are trend chasers rather than solid engineers, which erodes any trust I had in this project.
When a project has thousands of users it's irresponsible to use it as a testing playground. If there is a legitimate benefit from rewriting something in another language, which is rare to begin with, the decision should be researched thoroughly and committed to. Doing it this often signals that authors easily latch on to shiny new tech, and value their experience over their users'. When the next modern language comes along, will we see a similar post explaining why they chose to abandon Rust?
I value both my experience and the users, and every asciinema release was backward compatible with the earlier ones (with few exceptions, where language change was not a factor), changing nothing in terms of UI/UX/API. The language is an implementation detail.
What's your problem?
> All this tells me is that the authors are trend chasers rather than solid engineers, which erodes any trust I had in this project.
Eh. I think my takeaway would be more that this is the authors passion / side project that they use to test and learn new languages.