Also a reply to serene (one post below). Before i reply, i would like to make two point clear. First, i'm not going to argue about performance, because i've u

Also a reply to serene (one post below). Before i reply, i would like to make two point clear. First, i'm not going to argue about performance, because i've used Rust for personal projects, i can say that it is really (like REALLY) efficient. Performance is great, no discussion. And two, as said, i've used it and like it. But honestly, the best thing about it (IMO) are the error messages. So... 1.Agreed. I'm just skeptical if i will see the day that those new processors will be as energy efficient as a 8051. Power consumption will always be an issue. 2.Well yes and no, at least that is my (maybe false) impression.As you say, if you want to be really efficient with Rust, you really should program functional as much as you possibly can. So is it functional or not? My impression is that it most of the time does not know what it wants to be. 3.Agreed and motivational to hear that it just takes some time (i'm still not that good with predicting the outcome). 4."Just like `Vec` does dynamic allocations, and you can just not use it." This, right there. The "and you can just not use it". This is what the C++ camp is saying, so the Rust community could end like the C++ community, where everyone is using another dialect.But that's just my personal grief.Anyhow, yes UB is maybe THE biggest problem. I've mentioned CompCert above, so if you are interested see http://compcert.inria.fr/man/manual004.html http://compcert.inria.fr/man/manual004.html. Regarding "A lot of human suffering had to been thrown at the problem to make C code do the job there", yes i agree. But now it (mostly) works, and nobody wants to risk anything and touch that code base, let alone rewrite. 5.Agreed. 6.My experience is not even that my peers have better things to do or do not want to try. I think it's matter of taste. People are different and prefer different things. To seren: "Rust would not have been a silver bullet but there is a whole class of error that would not have happened, and would have been forbidden in the first place. The subcontractors were supposed to use a static analyzer but we got the code back we had to fix 5000 defects of the worst kinds (buffer overflows, dereferencing null pointer, memory leaks and so on) For me, the value proposition of Rust is that it is roughly equivalent to C + a good static analyzer, but it is for free, and you are sure the checks are in place and have been executed." What makes you think that those people wouldn't have used "unsafe" everywhere, just because it makes their job easier?You would have ended up with the same mess.