[sudeepj]

The biggest issue which is inherent to the language is the learning curve. I feel there is limit beyond which language cannot be made easy to learn. I still claim it is worth learning Rust, however my point should still stand.

From personal experience: Our company had tailor made use-case to use Rust (switching from Python), more than Go. Experiments were performed and Rust outperformed Go in all aspects (time, CPU, memory). Everyone acknowledged but CTO (who knows C/C++ very well, he is a filesystem developer) decided to select Go. CTO was bullish on Rust to start with but developed cold-feet later. He told me that the only reason was that it is easy to train people in Go than in Rust. This one single thing trumped everything in my case. When I look back, I see his point & I respect that.

While issues like portability, eco-system, ABI stability, etc are important, these are not inherent problems with the language itself. They will get better over the time.

[asdkhadsj]

I made a similar decision quite a while back, though in the past year I reverted that decision and am back to using Rust.

My revert was mainly due to my realization that yes, Rust does take quite a bit to spin new devs up, it can be far easier than people give it credit for.

Specifically I found that I was able to write Rust code that looked, felt and prototyped just as fast as Go code. The complexities of Rust come when you push beyond Go's feature set, namely lifetimes and the myriad of Generics features. Yet, if you don't use those, if you pretend Rust is Go, the language is far far more approachable to new devs.

You may ask "what's the point then? Why not just use Go?" as I did. The answer imo, lies in if you ever expect to want or need features beyond Go. If you're using Go but need something more you're sort of stuck. You'll force your way through fitting Go's square peg into a round hole, or be forced to rewrite in something else. However if you're already using Rust you can simply use more advanced features in the specific areas you need.

[open-source-ux]

"The biggest issue which is inherent to the language is the learning curve"

I think of Rust as a "full-time" language - it doesn't lend itself to small, part-time use like languages such as Python or Ruby.

It is not an immediatley approachable language and can appear intimidating at first. It feels big, although this is subjective and for some a large language is not a problem.

I don't like the terse and cryptic syntax of Rust but this too is subjective and for many programmers it's something easily overcome. I do wonder though: what would people's perception (and takeup) of Rust have been like if the language had syntax closer to Ruby or Python?

[jetti]

"The biggest issue which is inherent to the language is the learning curve"

I agree. I have been learning Rust over the past year or so and I'm still getting hung on areas where trying to borrow an already borrowed value while in a loop. That said, the compiler error messages are typically very good.