I feel like most discussions touching on Rust revolve around the same lines - one person says they don’t want to use Rust (for whatever reason), a proponent sta

I feel like most discussions touching on Rust revolve around the same lines - one person says they don’t want to use Rust (for whatever reason), a proponent starts regurgitating the selling points, the former feels misunderstood (because that all has been heard many times before), the latter snubs at taking the former as being stubborn. I’ve been through my Rust hype phase, and I’ve been through thoughtfully applying it for web services and a greenfield messaging broker, albeit nothing systems level. With a decade or so C++ behind the belt, I don’t feel an app team is necessarily more productive over the lifecycle of the project if they pick Rust over C++, much less so if they pick it over Java. I’ve been doing mostly low-latency JVM projects. I can extract better performance from a JVM and a given infrastructure than from Rust. Ease of development and the option to delegate the lifetimes to the GC, or just get a huge heap, is often the escape hatch you need to make through the tight deadline. In Rust, you need just one “smart” colleague to make the project unmaintainable - wasting everyone’s time on optimizing the type signatures making it thereby impenetrable to anyone outside the team, or easy to forget the derivation a few months later on. There was a nice suggestion on HN somewhere to distinguish between an area beneficial particularly to Rust (slow pace, settled architecture, more low-level) as opposed to the area with fewer fruits to reap for Rust where other semantics prevails.