Put differently, Rust will lose because the economics are stacked against it. I tend to agree. I'm very critical of Rust and the problems I've mentioned repeat

Put differently, Rust will lose because the economics are stacked against it. I tend to agree. I'm very critical of Rust and the problems I've mentioned repeatedly on here for 5+ years remain open. Some of my doomsday scenarios also played out exactly as expected, too. I think the fanboy attempts to avoid talking about issues is finally coming back to bite them. The stubborn insistence of not adopting canonical C++ ABIs has killed any realistic attempt to get a foothold in the AI landscape dominated by Python and C++. If there was ever going to be a snowballing effect, it would be now. Instead we see an revitalization of C, C++, and alternative languages that have good C++ compatibility. If you claim to be capable of replacing C++, you have to actually be in a position to replace C++. That includes libraries and tooling and all the other bits and pieces. It means that one group who actually wrote their own C++ compiler to target some weird architecture is going to rightfully be upset with you for failing to live up to the Rust marketing pervasive on the Internet. You can't hamfistedly say there are people working on this problem in Rust. At the very least, it creates a negative emotional reaction and upsets people that were interested in Rust, but now feel deceived. You also can't expect a startup founder to sit on their hands waiting an indefinite amount of time either. Business investors want to see measurable progress, especially since the ZIRP ship has sailed. This comment will be ignored because it generates too much cognitive dissonance for those involved in the the Rust project to handle. It's reasonable to conclude Rust primarily attracts smug programming language hipsters that enjoy expressing disdain for the languages they get paid to program in.