You have to think about memory management. No matter what rust evangelists say, you have to think about it. Well you don't have to worry about it like in C. Of

You have to think about memory management. No matter what rust evangelists say, you have to think about it. Well you don't have to worry about it like in C. Of course rust is intended for safe performance-critical programming. GC is fine for a significant portion of software. The ruby / javascript webshit culture creeping in - lot of microdependencies which can often be hard to audit. Projects like cargo-crev aren't getting any traction. Crates.io - the package registry lacks namespacing. That means package names have to be choosen carefully and you might here phrases like "import data from cabbage to rabbit using chickenshit crate" etc.. Async runtime fragmentation because stdlib doesn't provide one. Very small standard library. Many things need you install a crate which might come with 40 other dependencies. This kind of dependency counts are fine for creating webshit but sometimes you need to audit your dependencies, especially rust is intended for low level programming. Horrible compile times. You might think rust has better compile times than C++ because it has a module system. But compile times are similar. Rustc emits large chunks of LLVM IR. Not faulting people working on rust for this - but they have a shortage of talent. And rust community's zealotry makes lot of people sceptical. A very zealot community which also happens to be very active on programming link aggregators. You might get downvoted irrationally for simply critisizing some flaw of rust. You keep on hearing zero-information / out of context statements heralding rust. This is partly a consequence of influx of people from blogging-heavy ruby and javascript communities. Especially the javascript crowd has an Instagram feel to it. Some people among these have marginal knowledge of computer science concepts and still show up everywhere heralding rust. No structural typing. This may be flaw or virtue - people from dynamic typed languages may like structural typing as in Go or OCaml than nominal typing.