[dysfunctor]

Because people are subconsciously aware that an unstandardized language will never be appropriate for systems work. Rust is also hard to learn, very few resources, small community, disreputable maintainer and without an incentive to exist and make money like Oracle or Google, it's future is hopeful at best.

[outworlder]

I disagree on all counts. Hard to learn? As opposed to what? C++? Please. The only thing that's really hard to learn is the borrow checker. But that's because you are paying the cost upfront: your code just won't compile. Whereas in C, C++ and many other languages, you can get something obviously broken to compile and even run. But that will keep you awake late at night trying to debug issues that you don't understand, because you haven't actually learned how to manage memory properly yet.

Very few resources: What kind of resources are missing? I'm learning Rust myself and the available documentation is amazing for a language that young.

Small community, again, as opposed to what? The freenode #rust channels are packed. There is a huge amount of libraries already.

Disreputable maintainer: Please clarify.

"Without an incentive to exist" I'd say there's plenty of incentive: people doing systems programming that are dissatisfied with the available options.

There's some overlap with Golang and there Google's resources could be enough to push Rust out. But that's it.

Frankly, this sounds like baseless ranting.

The bit about standardization is very amusing too. C++ was always standardized. The standard was full of undocumented behavior, so different compilers would often compile the same code in different, sometimes broken, ways. All the while conforming to the standard. When they conformed at all.

Rust has one standard: the reference implementation. Would you be happier if the community formed a committee?

Disclaimer: I'm in no way involved with the community or affiliated with Mozilla. I'm just an interested observer.

[pcwalton]

A standard would make zero sense for Rust. It's obvious, because there is only one implementation at present, and Rust's RFC process is already far more open than ISO, ECMA, or any other standards group, which are basically pay-to-play.

The way you keep invoking "disreputable maintainers" in your posts attacking Rust speaks volumes, I think.

[jaegerpicker]

Not sure if this is trolling or not but on the off chance it's not, I think you are wrong on nearly every point.

I picked Rust recently and I was building small trivial but useful apps day 1, nontrivial apps 1st week, and a fairly large project in 2 months. The irc channels were great and hugely helpful, the documentation was mostly really good, and Mozilla has seemed to do a fantastic job running the project.