I really don't see what issues there are with rust that could be addressed by another language without compromise on the performance and memory safety axes. I

I really don't see what issues there are with rust that could be addressed by another language without compromise on the performance and memory safety axes. I can think of two reasons for people not moving: 1. inertia, aka "not going out of comfort zone to learn new things" ("learning" includes understanding why things are different, not merely knowing they are). This won't be addressed by another new language that people will also need to learn. 2. Existing codebases won't magically turn from C++ to Rust. Legacy is actually a good reason to still be using C++ today, but another language also won't address this, as the fundamental issue is you can't change the existing code to be safer without effort. In both cases, time and effort on the language best positioned to replace C++ (Rust) will alleviate these issues. In particular this effort could be spent to fully close the feature gap with C++ (specialization, more expressive consts, ...) and improving Rust/C++ interoperability. No need to "shame" people, but finding a way to replace C++ use by Rust use is how we will solve the problem.