You are probably right about Rust: it has challenges that seems to make a lot of people want to keep it at arms length. Viability isn't just about technical fi

You are probably right about Rust: it has challenges that seems to make a lot of people want to keep it at arms length. Viability isn't just about technical fitness, but also about momentum, community size, pace and having sensible "taste makers" that teach the community good design and programming practices. At the moment I don't see any viable alternatives. Rust has a good sized community AND people have been working on embedded use of it for many years already. It took a lot of work to get there. For an alternative to be viable it would have to achieve at least what Rust has achieved so far. What will ultimately determine if Rust becomes the new go-to language for embedded programming is the community forming around embedded Rust projects. Ruby is a good example of the power of a community trying to solve a given problem. I think Ruby would not have made it if it were not for Rails. Ruby started out as an interesting language with an atrociously bad runtime and ratty standard library. Yet it Rails had a community that vastly outperformed the qualities of the language/runtime it was based on. Perhaps embedded programming is where Rust will ultimately make such a huge difference the application of Rust becomes greater than Rust itself. Perhaps a Rust based RTOS, and a sensible approach to how embedded software is structured, modularized, and designed may be the thing that becomes greater than the language itself?