> Rust: language is still evolving. The language has been at 1.0 and hence backwards-compatibility for a year and a half. Features are being added, but existin

> Rust: language is still evolving. The language has been at 1.0 and hence backwards-compatibility for a year and a half. Features are being added, but existing code is stable now, with a similar (or maybe even more strict) compatibility promise to the one Go has. > 6. Go: large and growing list of tools, both shipped as part of Go and made by community (debuggers, memory and cpu profilers, race detector, runtime tracing for debugging multi-threading). > Rust: not so much. This is wrong: Rust can use all the same tooling as C and C++, and they work well. This includes debuggers like gdb and lldb (and, even better, rr), as well as profilers/other things like perf and valgrind. The situation may be a little misleading because Rust doesn't have to reimplement everything like Go, and, furthermore, I don't think having to duplicate work is a good thing. Additionally, the language itself helps mitigate a lot of bugs for which such tooling is needed. Strong assurances and more automated checking are the pay off of the steeper learning curve and "manual" memory management. (Of course, as you imply, having the compiler be more helpful may not be worth the trade-off for a domain like web apps/microservices.)