The tweet has an arguable assumption, but on the other hand, an important truth: > The future will solve this automagically: people using Rust massively will p

The tweet has an arguable assumption, but on the other hand, an important truth: > The future will solve this automagically: people using Rust massively will pay a productivity tax that if not counter balanced by the safety wins will turn into a competitive issue. And most folks are now using Rust where more productive garbage-collected language would be better The core is "most folks are now using Rust where more productive garbage-collected language would be better". This is very true: GC'ed languages are nowadays fast and expressive enough that they may covert the vast majority of use cases. Use cases for low-level languages are shrinking. What I find arguable about this tweet is: > people using Rust massively will pay a productivity tax that if not counter balanced by the safety wins will turn into a competitive issue This assumes that there is a significant amount of teams who choose Rust lightly, without assessing its complexity. I think this is not the case, as it's a notoriously hard language, and it's not an obvious choice (although there is people who suggest it for webdev, which I think it's not appropriate, in general). But on the other hand, I don't have statistics on this.