[lmilcin]

> The statement Rust is for Professionals does not imply any logical variant thereof. e.g. I am not implying Rust is not for non-professionals. Rather, the subject/thesis merely defines the audience I want to speak to: people who spend a lot of time authoring, maintaining, and supporting software and are invested in its longer-term outcomes.

I think the title is a little bit misleading and paired with the first sentence invites flame, but this one in the middle of article sums it up much better.

With some languages you pay some special costs that are only recovered for certain types of applications.

For example, programming in C is slow, tedious and bug-prone (as compared to Python) but it is easier to solve some types of problems (like writing system software, controlling memory layout for performance, conserve resources, etc.) For most projects the cost may be too high but if you are one of certain types of projects the pros will outweigh the cons.

In general, when programming with strong types you pay for long term maintainability (ability to automatically ascertain correct type of object at any point and extra features that come from it).

In Rust you pay even more for even more benefit in controlling the types and ownership of the data which means this environment should be thought as geared even more towards long term maintainability.