Honestly, I'm increasingly sceptical on this point. If your developers are comfortable writing Rust (and in fairness, this is a big "if", particularly with juni

Honestly, I'm increasingly sceptical on this point. If your developers are comfortable writing Rust (and in fairness, this is a big "if", particularly with junior developers), then I think you can use Rust as a fairly high-level language, and it will quite happily replace Python or Ruby if you want it to. Recently at my job, we started a new project in Python, which worked fairly well, but the code runs in a somewhat constrained environment. Out of interest, I rewrote the whole project in Rust in about two days, and implemented a big new feature in another day. What I found was that the code ran ~10× as fast, but it was, if anything, even simpler to implement than in Python. Part of that was probably the rewrite effect, and part was definitely the web framework (Warp), but I found I was still mostly writing fairly high-level code. On top of that, when I had to drop down into using more natural synchronisation primitives, it was very easy to (a) do that and (b) wrap that low-level code in a high-level abstraction. In the end, we decided not to go down this route, mainly because others in the team were less confident about using Rust, but it was, for me at least, a really impressive example of how one can get a lot of the benefits of low level languages with relatively little development cost by using Rust. We probably noticed more of a benefit because of the more constrained environment (although bear in mind, the python alternative had been working just fine for us up until then), but even still, a quicker implementation means less hardware, which means cheaper costs - if you can do that without much effort, that's a pretty good trade-off!