[steveklabnik]

> There are fields such as automotive and aerospace where absence of Rust's standard is a showstopper for using Rust.

"fields" is a bit too broad. Not all applications in those fields require a standard or certification. That being said, you're absolutely right that in some cases, it is required.

> In C/C++ world there are companies that implement certified compilers.

That is true. In Rust, this is what we're seeing too; the first certification effort is being led by a company, in concert with the language team itself. This is still ongoing.

> I find it's pretty funny that language, which positions itself as safe replacement for C/C++, can't be used in safety critical applications.

This is overloading the word "safe." Rust has been about memory safety. Not about every possible meaning of the word "safe." Yes, Rust is not yet mature enough for industries with those kinds of requirements. Yes, they are not small fields. They are still smaller than the sum of all fields that do not require them. Rust doesn't have to be applicable for every possible use at the earliest stages of its life to matter.

We'll see how it goes.