Interesting that you call it available for 16 years when 1.0 came out in 2015 and looked little like pre-1.0 Rust, and I would argue that no 1.0 language is usu

Interesting that you call it available for 16 years when 1.0 came out in 2015 and looked little like pre-1.0 Rust, and I would argue that no 1.0 language is usually successful until later releases. I would also say that Rust 1.0 is nowhere close to where it got to in 2018, let alone today. Python didn't become prevalent until 2.4 and Java didn't take off until at least 1.1.1. Elsewhere you claim nothing is written of note is written in Rust, and I would be interested in knowing what you base this on. Either we have different definitions on what makes a project significant, or you just haven't seen them. I do not know what level of market share you think would be needed for Rust to have been worth it, but given it was originally aimed at the ill-defined but somewhat niche "systems programming" space, and now it is being used up and down different layers of the tech stack I would call it a success of adoption.