Rust definitely has a lot to improve on. I'm a daily Rust user, and the compile times are still absolutely terrible, and I have to agree it isn't a simple langu

Rust definitely has a lot to improve on. I'm a daily Rust user, and the compile times are still absolutely terrible, and I have to agree it isn't a simple language for any sane definition of simple. That said: almost all your points apply to C++. There's nothing simple about C++. it can be incredibly complex and slow (though faster than Rust, but that's not much of an achievement). The rules around what constitutes valid (non-UB) code is anything but simple. It isn't uncommon for the syntax to look arcane (IMO much more so than Rust, although obviously YMMV). The standard library is extremely shallow, making developers have to resort to third party libraries for trivial things, except there's no package manager or standard build system, so good luck with that. And yet, here we are, with C++ dominating the market. So I don't think any of those reasons are dealbreakers at all. I believe Rust has the potential for market adoption as a serious C++ competitor. It still has a long road to get there, but C++ didn't reach this point in a day either. We see more and more adoption in big companies of Rust. Microsoft recently expressed interest in using rust in critical components to reduce security bugs for instance. More and more companies are experimenting with Rust, and some are even using it in production. Besides, there's another victory to Rust: more and more languages are looking into integrating borrow semantics in their own language, like swift[0]. This is proof that Rust's core ideas work. If those trickle down to other languages, the "complexity" of borrows will probably become just one of the other things you just have to get used to to learn programming. [0]: https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/OwnershipManifesto.md https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/OwnershipMan...