Not entirely true. When there are multiple implementations disagreements between them in normative behavior prove one or the other (or the language itself) has

Not entirely true. When there are multiple implementations disagreements between them in normative behavior prove one or the other (or the language itself) has a bug. This means you can run randomized tests in your software, hash the results, and the hash should be the same between compilers (and across platforms). That's an option that doesn't exist when there aren't multiple, and even if you won't use the potential personally other people using it will eliminate bugs in the compiler. The csmith program was used to find an incredible amount of bugs in gcc and clang. This approach can also be applied to many pieces of ordinary code too. Prior poster's point is also that when there is only one the language is the compiler and it's not useful to talk about them in isolation. I don't fully agree with that in theory since the language is supposed to be stable-ish while bugs in the compiler will get fixed. So to the extent that something in rust is a footgun due to the language we might be stuck with it, but if its due to a compiler bug it will probably be fixed.