Rust is suitable to replace C in some (nontrivial) percentage of cases right now, and that percentage will likely/hopefully increase over time. I agree integra

Rust is suitable to replace C in some (nontrivial) percentage of cases right now, and that percentage will likely/hopefully increase over time. I agree integrating with existing C build systems is a sore point (in fact my largest personal grievance against Rust — tied to it's very annoying 'modern' habit of "everything brings its own package manager"). But for the time being I don't see any signs of design decisions that would permanently hamper Rust. That said, I think some of your expectations are rather personal to you with limited objective merit: the Linux kernel Rust people seem to be happy to use Rust without its stdlib to get the panic-freedom they need, and compile times being slower is something that needs to be weighted against the safety guarantees you get in exchange. Rust intrinsically warns/errors on a lot of things that with C you need a static analysis build for — and if you compare build time against C+SA, it's actually not slow.