I agree that I want Rust usage to grow. I disagree that we made technical mistakes that hamper its growth. You've thrown out dozens of reasons over time, none o

I agree that I want Rust usage to grow. I disagree that we made technical mistakes that hamper its growth. You've thrown out dozens of reasons over time, none of which were legitimate. Every time you name some feature of Rust you claim is a "gratuitous new thing", we calmly show you why (a) that feature is already in C++ or (more often) (b) that feature is necessary to make lifetimes/ownership/borrowing work. I think that the simple fact is that ownership, lifetimes, and borrowing are unfamiliar. They have a learning curve, period. We can't expect a language with them to take over the world in a year. Programming languages are a mature market. Progress will be slow. Rust is doing far better than 95% of new programming languages after a year. Most programming languages are dead after a year.