> Rust is not suitable if the initial team members are not Rust experts This one is true, the others very much not! Let's group them in two categories: HR and

> Rust is not suitable if the initial team members are not Rust experts This one is true, the others very much not! Let's group them in two categories: HR and pace. > - Rust is not suitable if the startup doesn't have money (Rust devs are very expensive and scarce) > - Rust is not general hire friendly Rust developers aren't plenty, but neither are Rust jobs so it's not harder to find candidates than with any other languages. And since we're still in the early-adopters stage, the candidate pool is of much higher quality in average. And people are in fact happy to be able to land a job in a language that they like so much, so they aren't particularly expensive either (a bit like video game developers). > Rust is not suitable for fast paste startup environment > Rust is not ideal for iterative and high refactor potential of startup culture This is very much the opposite! Rust is arguably S-tier when it comes to refactoring, the strong typing making it almost impossible to cause regressions during refactoring, including concurrent and parallel code, this is probably its biggest strength overall and its unparalleled in any language I'm familiar with (that is C#, Java, JS, typescript and Go). Overall it's a bit awkward to see that you're use two strengths of Rust as if it was liabilities.